beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 86,646,40 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 3, 2015 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around March 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply transaction of pharmaceutical products, etc. with F, the representative of D Council members (after changing the trade name to E Council members) located on the seventh floor of the Seo-gu Daejeon building, Daejeon. (2) around May 2013, F transferred the above E Council members to B. On May 30, 2013, B changed the said trade name into “G Council members” (hereinafter “instant hospital”).
3) As above, F transferred the above hospital to B, but the fact was the actual operator of the G Council. (4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff supplied drugs to B from March 2012 to January 28, 2014, and the unpaid amount of KRW 86,646,400 remains.
B. A business transfer agreement between B and the Defendant on September 1, 2014 between B and B, the Defendant transferred all of the various facilities and equipment including the instant hospital (Evidence 2-10 of the evidence No. 150,000) with respect to the instant hospital (hereinafter “instant transfer agreement”) and the same content as the transfer agreement (hereinafter “instant transfer agreement”) stating that the Defendant is liable for not only the retirement pay or unpaid wages of employees related to the instant hospital as well as other expenses for the goods such as medicine of the instant hospital (Evidence 2-38 of the evidence No. 2 of the transfer agreement).
(2) The Defendant acquired the instant hospital in accordance with the instant transfer contract, and registered its business as “Hwon” on September 1, 2014, and thereafter, operated the instant hospital from that time after changing its trade name.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-2, 3, 10, 38, 42, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof
A. The plaintiff 1's assertion of the parties is the business takeover of the hospital of this case operated by B, and continues to use the trade name "G Council members" as the business takeover of the hospital of this case.