물품대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The text of the judgment of the court of first instance is set forth.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and 5-1, and Eul evidence 1 may be admitted, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:
The Plaintiff operated “C” as food materials sales business place. From June 2012 to May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied food materials equivalent to KRW 472,891,00,000, in total, of the price for smuggling, mathium, mathium, and math oil to “E”, a business place manufacturing rice tea (E) in Macheon-si, Macheon-si, Macheon-si, and received KRW 409,00,000 as the price.
B. “E” was operated by the original G and F (hereinafter collectively referred to as “G, etc.”). On February 28, 2013, G, etc.’s defect in reporting the closure of business, the Defendant completed business registration with the same trade name on March 1, 2013, and operated the existing “E” factory in Scheon-si D, and continued to receive food materials from the Plaintiff until May 20, 2013.
C. As of February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied food materials to “E”, and the amount not paid was KRW 53,946,00 as of February 28, 2013, and thereafter, the Plaintiff reached KRW 63,891,00 as of May 20, 2013.
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The Defendant is a transferee of the business that covers the trade name in which the Plaintiff acquired the business of “E” from the Plaintiff G, etc., and is liable for the Plaintiff’s supply in the future of “E” pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, and for payment of the total amount of KRW 63,891,000
B. The Defendant completed business registration separate from Defendant G, etc., and entered into a lease agreement with H, the owner of a building used as the place of business of “E”, while acquiring only the machinery and equipment of a factory from G, etc. and operating a separate rice mill factory. Since the Plaintiff did not engage in comprehensive business takeover, including debt succession from G, etc., it did not constitute a comprehensive business takeover. As such, the Defendant was the former one between the Plaintiff and G, etc., other than KRW 9,945,00, which was incurred after March 1, 2013 from the price of food materials supplied