1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's revocation part is against the defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) each of the Defendant C’s respective “Defendant C” during the 6th or 3th or 7th of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) each of the Defendant B’s “Defendant B” is the same as the reasons indicated in the above part, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the CPA.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion that: (a) during the period from August 29, 2012 to June 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,246,700 in cash to B despite having been supplied goods equivalent to KRW 35,864,300 from “E” operated by B; and (b) remitted KRW 50,970,00 to the bank account to pay the goods in excess of the price; (c) the Defendant asserts that as a transferee of business who was transferred the business from B and possessed the trade name, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to return KRW 25,352,40,00 paid in excess to B as unjust enrichment.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not have contacted or verified the defendant while paying the price of the goods that the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant B, and that it was merely prepared between the plaintiff and B, and that the defendant does not bear a joint and several liability for the debt of the defendant.

B. The judgment is based on the following facts: the Defendant concluded a contract for the transfer of business regarding E with B on or around March 1, 2013, and received the transfer of business right after which the Defendant continued to use the trade name called E, and the fact that the Defendant continued to use the trade name called “E” does not conflict between the parties or as seen earlier.

However, as seen earlier, the transferee’s liability for deceiving the trade name under Article 42 of the Commercial Act pertains to “a third party’s claim arising from the business of the transferor,” and on the other hand, on June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of payment stating that “B shall pay the difference of KRW 7,700,000,000 from the supply of the goods with F until the end of July 2014, as seen earlier.”

In light of the above legal principles.