(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.10.23 2019나64869

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.10.23 2019나64869

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

Reasons

1. The fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justified even if the evidence presented in the first instance court citing the judgment of the first instance was neglected to the evidence presented in this court.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the "6,279,680 won" of the second 7,11 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "49,358,050 won", and under the second 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to a new claim of the plaintiff at the court of first instance as stated in the second 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except adding the judgment as described in the second 2 of the judgment

2. Request based on the liability of a business transferee.

A. As the Defendant’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is taking over the entire business of D from C to use the same trade name at the same place, and continues its business, the Defendant, who is a business transferee under Article 42 of the Commercial Act, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount claimed in the instant claim among the money cited in the instant claim for loans 2013Gahap5555 between C and the said Plaintiff.

B. In accordance with Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, a transferee of a business who belongs to the judgment trade name is liable to repay a third party’s claim arising from the transferor’s business. Here, a transferor’s obligation to a third party, whose transferee is liable for repayment, refers to the transferor’s obligation arising from the transferor’s business activities to a third party.

However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff has a loan claim against C by a final judgment of the Gwangju District Court 2013Gahap555 case, and there is no evidence to find that C’s above debt against the Plaintiff was arising from the business of D, or from its business activities, and it is difficult to deem that the transferee of business constitutes a third party’s claim liable for repayment.

Therefore, this is applicable.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-상법 제42조

-상법 제42조 제1항

유사 판례

-대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2009다38827 판결

-대전지방법원 2017.12.22 2017나105768

-전주지방법원 2015.05.06 2014가단34319

-광주지방법원순천지원 2016.01.07 2015가단7972

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.15 2016가단5125425