beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 75,665,700 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 19, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the main claim
(a) Indication of claim 1 against Defendant B: A judgment to acknowledge confessions as to the Plaintiff’s claim for goods supplied from June 2016 to February 2, 2017 to Defendant B, a gold-type manufacturing business with the trade name “D”: Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act
B. The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant C, who was the spouse of Defendant B, continued to operate the same business as “E” and run by Defendant B by acquiring the business of “D” from Defendant B. The Defendant C is a transferee who belongs to the trade name under Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, and thus, the Defendant C and the Plaintiff are jointly and severally liable to pay the unpaid amount of KRW 75,665,700 and damages for delay.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, and each of the tax information submission orders issued on April 20, 2018 and July 18, 2018 by the former and US Head of the tax office of this court, defendant C is engaged in the principal and gold-type manufacturing business with the trade name of "E", and the employees and customers of "E" and "D" are recognized to have common facts, but such circumstance alone does not lead to the conclusion that the defendant C took over the business from the defendant B. Further, the "E" and "D" are common parts of the "F" generally used by manufacturers, and it is difficult to view that the two trade names are common among the above two parts because they are not common parts of the main parts of the business.
Therefore, the above argument of the first-party plaintiff cannot be accepted on a different premise.
2. The plaintiff in the conjunctive claim against the defendant C promised to set up a new business entity and pay the debt of the defendant C. Thus, the defendant C should pay the agreed amount of KRW 75,665,700 to the plaintiff and the delay damages. However, the statement in the evidence No. 4 alone is that the defendant C should pay it to the plaintiff.