1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,953,830 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from February 27, 2016 to July 4, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2011, C engaged in the wholesale and retail business of livestock products with the trade name “D”, but transferred the business to the Defendant around October 2014. The Defendant, from around that time, was running a wholesale and retail business of livestock products by deceiving the said trade name, and closed the business around April 2016.

B. The Plaintiff is a corporation engaging in wholesale and retail business of livestock products, and supplied C and the Defendant, which run “D” from around 2011 to February 26, 2016, with livestock products supplied to C and the Defendant, and on February 26, 2016, the balance of the goods price is KRW 36,953,830.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In the first place of the Plaintiff, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 36,953,830 of the unpaid amount of goods and the Defendant’s conjunctive obligation is the case where the Defendant continues to use the transferor’s trade name as the transferee of the business pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, even if the obligation for the unpaid amount is C’s obligation, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the unpaid amount of goods.

B. The Defendant’s unpaid goods payment obligation is the obligation arising between the Plaintiff and C, and is not the obligation that the Defendant incurred after the Defendant acquired the “D”.

In addition, since the right to collateral security has been established on the real estate of the father of C in order to secure the obligation for the payment of the unpaid goods, the plaintiff is satisfied with the execution of the right to collateral

3. The above-mentioned facts and the following circumstances revealed through the above macroscopic evidence were issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant each time of supplying the goods, namely, the Plaintiff’s written statement of transaction was recorded in the immediately preceding balance, the sales amount on the day, and the balance on the day, and the Defendant signed in the column of the underwriter of the transaction specification. This can be evaluated as having the meaning of confirming the immediately preceding balance, the sales amount on the day, and the present balance, and the Plaintiff supplied the last goods to the Defendant on February 26, 2016, and the said written statement of transaction are written.