1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff: (a) around August 2019, after the rehabilitation procedure was abolished, transferred its business to the Defendant around August 2019; and (b) the Defendant continues to conduct its business by using “D,” which is the same or similar trade name as C; and (c) is liable to repay C’s obligations as a transferee of business pursuant to Article 42 of the Commercial Act; and (d) the Defendant constitutes C’s successor, and thus, sought the grant of the instant

In accordance with Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, a transferee of a business who continues to use the trade name of the transferor shall be liable to pay his liability arising from the business of the transferor under Article 42(1).

Even if there are no special circumstances such as the waiver of the obligation, the transferee of the business may not immediately be considered as a successor after the closing of argument under Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 78Da2330 delivered on March 13, 1979, etc.). In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant acquired the business of C as alleged by the plaintiff, and even if the defendant can be recognized as a transferee of business, it is difficult to say that the defendant alone constitutes a successor for granting the succession execution clause under Article 31(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is neither mother nor with merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.