1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C and D, while operating the “FE” in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E, transferred the said E-art business to G Co., Ltd. with a representative director around November 2012.

B. On November 25, 2012, C and D borrowed KRW 110,00,00 from the Plaintiff to May 1, 2013, the due date for repayment of KRW 20% per annum. G and H, the father of the Defendant, jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff. On January 30, 2013, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement as the law firm Multi-Davia and No. 110 on January 30, 2013.

C. On February 18, 2013, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order as Seoul Eastern District Court 2013TT2542 with respect to part of the claims against financial institutions, such as the National Bank of Korea Co., Ltd., G, and around that time, the said order reached G.

Accordingly, on February 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) changed the name of the Fmaart’s business operator from Company G to the Defendant; and (b) changed its trade name from “Fmate” to “IE”; (c) on the ground that the Defendant, on January 24, 2014, changed the name of the business operator and evaded the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution, was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office; and (d) on May 15, 2014, H was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for evasion of compulsory execution at the Seoul Central District Court, and is still pending in the appellate trial.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 5, Eul evidence 3 through 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s liability for the transferee of the business following the mutual continued use of the business was that the Defendant took over the business from G Co., Ltd. on February 22, 2013 and used the trade name continuously, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable for the performance of the obligation based on the said notarial deed by G Co., Ltd. under Article 42 of the Commercial Act.