1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the defendant's assertion that D, who was the administrator of the plaintiff company, was well aware of the name lending, is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion. The defendant's assertion added or emphasized by this court is just the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The defendant's assertion that the contract was succeeded to the status of the contractor under the shipbuilding contract in this case between the plaintiff, the defendant, G, and F. Thus, the defendant et al. is not obligated to pay the price under the shipbuilding contract in this case. 2) The acquisition of the contract for the purpose of succession to the status of the contractor is included in the transfer of comprehensive rights and obligations arising out of the contract, such as the right of rescission, in addition to the transfer of claims and obligations arising out of the contract, and the transfer of the contract is legitimate, unless there are special circumstances such as the transferor's withdrawal from the contract, and the transferor's reservation of exemption after the contract was completed, and there is no contractual relationship between the remaining party and the transferor. However, the acquisition of the contract is ordinarily made through a three-party agreement between the transferor, the transferee, and the remaining party, and if two-party parties agreed to transfer the status of the contractor in this case, the remaining party's consent or consent should be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da53850, May 24, 20009).