The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “C” (hereinafter “C”), lent money to D, from July 2007 to July 2013, 201, on several occasions, under the pretext of expanding the salted fish chain construction cost, etc.

B. On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D for a loan claim against Daejeon District Court 2015Kadan2259, and on August 17, 2015, the agreement that “D shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 75 million, and the KRW 30 million shall be paid to the Plaintiff until November 30, 2015, and the KRW 30 million shall be paid until May 31, 2016, and KRW 30 million shall be paid until November 30, 2016. If D does not pay each of the above installments by the payment date, the agreement was concluded that each of the installments shall be paid in addition to the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the payment date to the day of complete payment.”

C. D, on July 16, 2015, established a defendant who is the representative director of the defendant, and closed the business on July 26, 2015.

On December 16, 2015, the repayment of the above loan was transferred from the defendant's account to the plaintiff's account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The defendant is engaged in the same business as C after taking over the business from C. The defendant is engaged in the same business as C. The defendant is engaged in publicity and sales activities through the main Internet portal site, and is carrying on business by putting up the signboard called C on the defendant's main office building. Thus, the defendant is deemed to have continued to use C's trade name (family) after taking over the business from C or to have taken over C's business obligation. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the business obligation to D(C) in accordance with Article 42 or 44 of the Commercial Act.