beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,38,883 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from June 16, 2019 to November 6, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In light of the purport of Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “where the transferee continues to use the transferor’s trade name, the transferee shall also be liable for the third party’s claim arising from the business of the transferor.” In order to hold the transferee liable for the liability to the transferee of the business who belongs to the trade name, it is unnecessary to place restrictions on what constitutes the cause of mutual continuity in order to hold the transferee of the business who belongs to the trade name liable, and it is sufficient
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17123, 17130, Jan. 15, 2009).
Judgment
1) The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4. A) The plaintiff entered into a contract for goods supply with Eul, which operated the private company of the trade name "D" (hereinafter "the previous company of this case"). Under the contract for goods supply, the goods, such as steel, have been continuously supplied to the previous company from around 2012 to July 27, 2018.
B) On December 26, 2011, E, one of its own business entities, started the instant previous business entity with the trade name “D,” and closed the business around July 31, 2018. After that, the Defendant, who was the spouse of E, was the same personal business entity as “F” on August 1, 2018 (hereinafter “instant business entity”).
(C) The location of the previous business establishment of the instant case was G at the time of strike, and the location of the business establishment of the instant case is the same place as above.
In addition, the previous enterprise and the enterprise of this case are enterprises engaged in the same business such as construction and manufacturing business, and the employees who worked in the previous enterprise of this case have been employed in the previous enterprise of this case even after the closure of the previous enterprise of this case.