1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the determination of the plaintiffs’ assertion as to this case. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that “The Defendant is obligated to pay the F’s price for the goods to the Plaintiffs, as a mutual-speed transferee, since the F’s goodwill, business partners, and the purchase of credit sales closed on March 31, 201 when the Defendant established G, took over the F’s goodwill, the purchase of credit sales, etc., as they were, and changed only with the location of the workplace.”

(b) business transfer means a business entity organized for a given business purpose, that is, a business entity that maintains its identity and transfers its human and material organization as a whole, and whether the business transfer is made is not determined by what kind of business property is transferred, but by which the entity can function as a whole or an essential part of its business entity by maintaining its existing business entity;

Therefore, even if a business facility is transferred without reserving the part of the business property, it shall be deemed as a transfer of business in light of the social concept that the previous organization is maintained even if the business facility is transferred without reserving the part of the business property. However, even if the entire business property was dismantled and transferred, it shall not be deemed as a transfer of business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23826 delivered on May 30, 2003, etc.). C.

Each description of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number, if any) and the following circumstances, which can be recognized by this court by comprehensively taking into account the results of fact inquiries and the overall purport of arguments to the head of Busan Regional Headquarters of the National Health Insurance Corporation, i.e., the defendant's father, and H was an individual enterprise operated by H, which is the defendant's father, even after the closure of March 31, 201.