logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.06.07 2018나62353
물품대금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

The defendant 26,170.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and supplies electronic equipment, etc. under the trade name of “C”. 2) D, from March 23, 2015, was engaged in the manufacture of prototypes and the development of designs in the trade name of “E”, and closed the business registered on May 31, 2018.

3) The Defendant was established on July 7, 2017 and runs a processing business, design service business, etc., and D is the representative director of the Defendant. (b) The Plaintiff’s supply of the Plaintiff’s products from March 23, 2017 to August 3, 2017, supplied sludge and lighting to D (E) as indicated in the attached Table, and delivered the Defendant’s signboard design, etc. (c) around August 24, 2018. The Plaintiff sent the Plaintiff’s written statement to the Defendant that the Plaintiff would pay the unpaid goods by December 27, 2017, and the said written statement reached the Defendant on December 21, 2017.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act as to whether the Defendant is deemed to have taken over the business of D (E) or not, where a transferee continues to use the transferor’s trade name, the transferee is also liable to repay a third party’s claim arising from the transferor’s business.

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da35138, Sept. 30, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da89722, Apr. 11, 2008). Moreover, in general, the said provision provides that a transferee of business who continues to use a trade name is liable to repay obligations arising from the transferor’s business operation to a transferee of business, the obligor’s business credit is the obligor.

arrow