1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The party's assertion and judgment

A. On July 31, 2008, the plaintiff asserted that C entered into a joint and several guarantee contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "C") to guarantee the obligation of the principal debtor B, and that C bears the obligation of the above joint and several guarantee obligation (hereinafter "the obligation of this case") to the effect that the defendant who takes over the above joint and several guarantee obligation is liable to perform it.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant received the business of C, did not take over the debt of this case, and did not belong to C's trade name.

B. Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides that "if the transferee continues to use the transferor's trade name, the transferee is also liable for the debt of a third party arising from the transferor's business, and the latter part of Article 42(2) provides that "if the transferor and transferee notify without delay a third party that they are not liable for the debt of the transferor, the transferee and transferee are not liable for the debt of the transferor, this provision shall not apply to the third party so notified." Thus, in the case of the transfer of business, unlike the takeover of the company and merger, the debt not included in the object of the transfer is not automatically succeeded to the transferee. However, if the transferee needs to protect the third party (creditor) due to the continuous use of the transferor'

Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is responsible for the instant obligation should prove the fact of business transfer between C and the Defendant, along with the fact of business transfer and takeover between C and the Defendant, or the fact of the instant assumption of obligation between the Defendant and C, and the fact that the Plaintiff, the obligee, has consented thereto.

It is evident that there is no room to recognize the existence of trade name between C and Defendant’s trade name “A,” and the Plaintiff’s assumption of the obligation of this case.