1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 80,267,975 and its relation thereto from October 25, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant continues to use the non-party company's personal and material property as it is, in the name of the non-party company A.

Therefore, the defendant is a transferee of the business which belongs to the trade name of the non-party company, and is responsible for repaying obligations to the plaintiff of the non-party company pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the Commercial

B. The defendant's assertion is merely changing the trade name to A, which was the trade name of the non-party company, and it does not take over the business from the non-party company.

3. Determination

A. Business transfer under the Commercial Act refers to a business entity organized for a certain business purpose, i.e., a business entity that maintains its identity and maintains its identity, and whether business transfer took place is not determined by which business property is transferred to any extent, but by which the organization can function as a whole or an important part of its business organization. Thus, even if business facilities are transferred with the reservation of the part of its business property, it can be viewed as a transfer of business if it is acknowledged that the previous organization is maintained even if it is transferred with the reservation of the part of its business property, it can be viewed as a transfer of business.

The transfer of business does not necessarily require the explicit contract between the parties to the transfer of business, and it is possible to do so by implied contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17123 Decided January 15, 2009, etc.)

B. In light of the above legal principles, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, 8, 9 (including the number of pages), and Eul evidence No. 1 in addition to the above basic facts.