beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff (mutual name: D) supplied C (mutual name: E) with a product from July 2016 to January 2017, 2017, but did not receive 35,741,750 won (hereinafter “the price of the instant product”).
B. Around March 2, 2017, the Defendant is running a manufacturing business by registering as a new business operator from the same address as E around March 2, 2017 with the trade name F.
C. Since the Defendant agreed to pay the price of the instant goods to the Plaintiff from January 2017 to March 2017, the Defendant was obligated to pay the price of the instant goods to the Plaintiff as a co-existent assumption of the obligation or a repayment agreement, and as such, as the Defendant acquired the business of C, it is liable to pay the price of the instant goods as a transferee of the business under Article 42 or 44 of the Commercial Act.
2. The reasoning of the judgment below and evidence No. 5-1 to No. 3 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant agreed to pay the goods of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
In addition, the defendant registered a new business at the same address.
It is insufficient to recognize that the transfer of business, which serves as the premise of liability as a transferee of business under Article 42 or 44 of the Commercial Act, has been made between C and the Defendant solely on the grounds of the fact that many details of deposit and withdrawal related to C are discovered from the account held in the name of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge
In addition, the trade name of C and the defendant's trade name cannot be deemed to be common to the main part for the determination of identity, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone indicates that the defendant receives the obligation due to the business of C by advertising.
It is difficult to deem that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he individually received an obligation.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is rejected in entirety.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .