1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1.The facts which have no dispute are subject to no dispute between the parties:

Until December 2015, the Plaintiff supplied C with goods equivalent to KRW 76,249,80,00, in the trade name of B, engaged in the manufacture and wholesale business of vessel parts.

B. On February 17, 2016, the Defendant registered the business as B with a trade name for the purpose of engaging in the manufacturing and wholesale business of vessel parts.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts as the cause of the claim in this case that, since the defendant belongs to the trade name by transfer of the business of C, the defendant is obligated to pay the price of the goods supplied by C, and the defendant is obligated to pay the price of the inventory goods in the amount of 2 months equivalent to 58,869,50 won, which the defendant trusted that the transaction with the defendant unilaterally ceased with the suspension of continuous transaction, will continue.

B. First, a claim is considered to be made for mutual continued use.

(1) Where a transferee continues to use a transferor’s trade name, the transferee is also liable for the repayment of a third party’s claim arising from the transferor’s business (Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act); where a transferee is liable for reimbursement under Article 42(1), the transferor’s obligation to the third party becomes extinct after the lapse of two years from the date of the transfer of the business (Article 45 of the Commercial Act); and as the duration of the transferor’s liability is the exclusion period, the issue of whether the period has expired is an ex officio investigation, and even if there is no assertion by the parties, the court must ex officio investigate the matter and consider the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da64116, Apr. 11, 2013). The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant acquired a business between December 2, 2015 and February 2016. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was obviously raised on March 15, 2018, and thus, the Defendant’s limitation period and the Defendant’s liability were extinguished.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

(2) even if any.