1. Defendant A’s KRW 67,001,940 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from December 22, 2015 to September 7, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the wholesale and retail business. From November 2015, the Plaintiff supplied C with meat sales business with the trade name “E” from Da and 1st floor Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of goods with Suwon District Court Decision 2016Kadan50951 and received a final and conclusive judgment against the Plaintiff, stating that “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 67,001,940 and its delay damages.”

C. Meanwhile, from November 2015, the aforementioned “E” was operated by Defendant A, who is a person of C, from around November 201, and Defendant A as the Defendants with the business registration name of “E” on December 21, 2015, but was changed on January 3, 2016 to Defendant A’s sole name.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each of the tax information and replys to the director of the Jung-gu Tax Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A

A. According to Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, where a transferee of a business continues to use the transferor’s trade name, the transferee is also liable to repay a third party’s claim arising from the transferor’s business.

The issue of whether a transfer of business can be seen as a transfer of business ought to be determined depending on whether the transferee can be deemed to continue business activities such as the transferor, which had been performed by the transferor after acquiring functional properties as sources of revenue organized organically (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da602, Jul. 22, 2005). The transfer of business does not necessarily require an explicit contract between the parties to the transfer of business and is also possible under an implied contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17123, 17130, Jan. 15, 2009). In the instant case, the following facts are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings on the health belt, the aforementioned evidence, and witness F’s testimony, namely, C’s operation of “E”, and the Defendant A, who was a person of C from November 2015, retired from office.