1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company selling food materials; from December 2014 to June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff is a mutually financed trading hole (hereinafter “E”) with the trade name “E” operated by Company E from December 2014 to June 17, 2015.

(2) On August 19, 2015, the Defendants entered into a contract for transfer or acquisition with E to acquire KRW 812,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract for transfer or acquisition”) on the condition that the business rights, trade names, etc. of the instant Securities Holdings would be transferred to KRW 812,00,000 (hereinafter “instant contract for transfer or acquisition”).

3) Under the instant transfer/acquisition agreement, the Defendants continued to use the trade name “E” from September 12, 2015, thereby running the instant database. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 14, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

B. We examine the judgment, and Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides that "if a business transferee continues to use a transferor's trade name, the transferee shall also be liable for the third party's claim arising from the business of the transferor." As can be seen in the above facts, the Defendants are liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid food materials supply amount of KRW 20,209,680, and delay damages incurred from the business of the instant securities brokerage pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, unless there are special circumstances, unless they continue to use the previous trade name "E."

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants, at the time of concluding the instant transfer/acquisition agreement with E, agreed not to take over the obligations arising from the business of the instant securities brokerage scheme prior to August 19, 2015, and notified the Plaintiff of the said fact. As such, the Defendants were obligated to pay back the goods payment obligations to the Plaintiff of E.