1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant agreed to compensate for the design cost of KRW 50,000,000, which the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff paid to I for, and succeed to, the unpaid design cost obligation of KRW 177,00,000,00, which the Plaintiff owes to I.

The Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff the total design cost of KRW 227,00,000 (=the total design cost of KRW 50,000,000). Therefore, the Defendant ought to pay the Plaintiff KRW 227,00,000,000.

B. 1) According to the facts as seen earlier, the parties to the contract for the transfer of business rights to the instant case are D (transferor), the Defendant, and the transferee. Thus, even if the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 50,000,000 of the cost of the design for the payment, the other party to the contract for the transfer of business rights cannot be the Plaintiff’s individual who is the party to the contract for the transfer of business rights, even if there is the obligation to pay KRW 50,00,000 for the cost of the design for the payment under the phrase that the contract for the transfer of business rights is “the cost of the design (design cost).”

Therefore, “D” may not demand payment of KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant, separate from claiming the payment of KRW 50,000,000 for the term payment according to the instant business right transfer agreement.

B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that D is merely one of the Plaintiff’s only. However, an individual and a company (a corporation becomes the subject of a separate legal act by strictly separating its legal personality, and in this case, D is actually a company whose name is in fact and is a company whose personal business is in fact only, and it can be seen that D is a legal personality to the extent that it is not only the Plaintiff’s personal business.