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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who runs the automobile parts sales business under the trade name of C, has been engaged in the transaction of supplying the automobile parts to the Defendant who runs the automobile maintenance business, etc. in the trade name of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant place of business”).

B. From February 2017, the Defendant is running the automobile maintenance business, etc. in the name of F in the instant workplace from February 7, 2017. The name of the business registration certificate issued by the head of Sungdong Tax Office on February 7, 2017 only stated that only the trade name is changed from E to F, and there is no change in the business registration number, business name, opening date, and type of business.

C. The Plaintiff continued to supply the automobile parts at the instant workplace even after the change of the trade name as above.

During the period from October 26, 2016 to February 26, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the automobile parts equivalent to KRW 3,679,357 in the instant workplace.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts found in the above basic facts, the defendant, who operated or operated a private business chain E or F, has a duty to pay to the plaintiff totaling KRW 3,679,357 and delay damages for the supply price of the above automobile parts, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s claim for the supply of the automobile parts up to January 31, 2017 among the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless, since the Defendant operated the automobile maintenance business in the name of E from November 1, 2003 to January 31, 2017, while receiving the supply of the automobile parts from the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the supply of the automobile parts up to January 31, 2017 among the instant claim is groundless.

In this case, the Plaintiff from October 26, 2016 to January 31, 2017 among the claims in this case.