1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,243,182 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from May 31, 2016 to August 29, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff supplied the livestock products, such as swine, to D who operated the “C” in the member-gu, Ansan-si.

B. On January 15, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract for business transfer with the content that all the business of the above “C” takes over KRW 130 million from D, and provided that the down payment of KRW 1 million shall be paid to E on January 13, 2016; the intermediate payment of KRW 29 million shall be paid on January 15, 2016; and the remainder of KRW 100 million shall be paid on March 30, 2016; and the remainder of KRW 70 million shall be paid to E.

C. On February 3, 2016, the Defendant registered the business with the trade name “F” at the same place as “C” operated by D and commenced the business.

The Plaintiff continued to supply livestock products to D and the Defendant, and the amount of which was not paid after having supplied livestock products until May 27, 2016 is KRW 42,868,582, including those about D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant continued to use the trade name while taking over the business of "C" operated by D, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the price for the goods stated in the purport of the claim among the amount not paid after supplying the livestock products to D and the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s trade name used by the Defendant is not the same as the trade name used by D as “F,” and the Defendant and D notify the Plaintiff that the existing obligation of D to the Plaintiff is only the responsibility of D and the Defendant did not take responsibility. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides that the business credit of an obligor is generally secured by the obligor’s business property to a transferee of business who continues to use a trade name, as a matter of course, for obligations arising from the transferor’s business.