물품대금등
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 37,663,294 won and the period from August 11, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
1. The part of the claim amounting to KRW 37,663,294 for the goods against Defendant A and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), first of all, the fact that Defendant A was supplied with the goods equivalent to KRW 37,663,294 from the Plaintiff during the period from November 2013 to August 2014, is deemed to have led to the confession between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Then, it is examined whether the defendant company is responsible for the repayment of the above obligation owed by the defendant A as a transferee of the business relationship.
In general, Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides that a transferee who continues to use a trade name is liable to repay debts arising from the business of a transferor. Although a transferor's business credit is most substantially secured by the debtor's business assets, even though the transferor's trade name is not succeeded, if the transferor continues to use the trade name, and the fact of transfer of business, or if the transferee fails to succeed to debts, and thus the obligee loses an opportunity to pursue debts, it is difficult to externally prove that the transferee is unable to succeed debts despite the transfer of business, and thus, the transferee is also liable to repay debts. Thus, the trade name is not the same until the trade name used by the transferor and the transferee used by the transferor are the same. However, if the trade name used before and after the transfer is common only in the main part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da826, Apr. 14, 1998). It does not require that the trade name of the transferor and transferee is entirely the same, and it includes a case where the transferor uses the business owner representing the main body of the business among the transferor's.
Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17123 Decided January 15, 2009