The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that he supplied food materials equivalent to KRW 2860,000 (including value-added tax) around July 2017 to the Defendant who operates a restaurant with the trade name of “E” within the D shop located in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and sought against the Defendant for payment of the above goods price of KRW 2.860,000 and damages for delay.

B. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received the above food materials from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. The Plaintiff’s assertion that, although the Plaintiff supplied F with the above food materials, the Defendant acquired a restaurant “E” from F, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the above food materials cost as a transferee of the business that belongs to its trade name.

However, the issue of whether a transfer of business can be viewed as a transfer of business should be determined depending on whether the transferee continues to engage in the same business activity as the transferor performed after the transferee transferred functional assets as the source of revenue organized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da35138 Decided September 30, 2010). However, the fact that the Defendant entered into a contract with F on April 16, 2016 that the Defendant is entitled to receive the said “E” restaurant license does not dispute the Defendant.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had operated the above restaurant by delivering it from F, and instead, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of Eul No. 5, it is only recognized that the F did not deliver the above restaurant to the Defendant even after concluding the business transfer agreement with the Defendant on the above restaurant, and it continued its business without delivering it to the Defendant. On November 201, 2017, the lessor of the above restaurant received the lease deposit from D, a lessor of the above restaurant, and closed the above restaurant.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is also accepted under the premise that the defendant continued to operate the above restaurant by delivery from F.