A. The Plaintiff is a person registered as a business operator under the trade name of “D” and engaged in the business of processing, selling, etc. livestock products.

B. Defendant B, from March 5, 2008 to December 31, 2015, operated a restaurant of “F” in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “F impulse”); from December 1, 2010 to January 17, 2018, Defendant B operated a restaurant of “F” in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “F” (hereinafter “F universal store”).

(c)

Defendant C registered as the business operator with the trade name “F” from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, and operated by Defendant B.

At the same place, the F had taken over the F-free points and operated a restaurant with the name of “F” (hereinafter referred to as “F C”).

(d)

The Plaintiff supplied livestock products to the Defendants in relation to the operation of the above restaurant of the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 24, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul's whole purport of pleading, and the whole purport of pleading

2. Determination 1 as to the Plaintiff’s claim on the Plaintiff’s main claim 1) The Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with livestock products related to the operation of FY and left KRW 63,248,929 in the balance of the product price as of December 31, 2015. Defendant C took over and operated Defendant B’s F impulse on January 1, 2016, while taking over the obligation to pay for the Plaintiff’s attempted goods, while taking over the obligation to pay for the Plaintiff’s attempted goods as of November 29, 2016 while dealing with the Plaintiff’s trade name, the Plaintiff left KRW 37,865,629 in the balance of the failed goods price as of November 29, 2016. Defendant C received KRW 10,000,000,000 and KRW 60,000 in the remainder of the product price from Defendant C and KRW 25,208,000 and KRW 206,505,208.

Therefore, Defendant C, the transferee who used the trade name with Defendant B, is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the aforementioned KRW 22,865,629 and the delayed damages.

2) The reasoning for this part of the judgment by the court is from the 7th sentence to the last sentence of the item “as to the claim of the principal lawsuit” among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.