1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part to be determined additionally as follows, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff has a claim for retirement allowance against C in arrears, as seen earlier, as seen earlier, the lawsuit on this part is unlawful as it falls under the absence of a preserved claim.

Even if the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance claim exists, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, a subrogation claim, does not exist, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, and only the Plaintiff’s appeal cannot be disadvantageously changed in the case appealed. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal is without merit.

1) The transfer of business under the Commercial Act refers to the transfer of human and material organization as a whole, that is, an enterprise organized for a certain business purpose, that is, the transfer of human and material organization as a whole while maintaining its identity, and whether the transfer of business is conducted 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 organization by maintaining its existing business organization (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17123, 17130, Jan. 15, 2009). 2) According to the fact inquiry results with regard to the statement in subparagraph 1 of Article 1 of the Gangseo-gu Office, according to the fact that the transfer contract between C and the defendant was submitted for the "right and obligation to obtain the automobile management business license" as at the time of application for the registration of the automobile management business.

However, according to the overall purport of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 14, 17, and 18, land for factory and land against the lessee C and sub-lessee F.