Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order is based on the payment order for the goods payment case for the Busan District Court Branch Decision 2017 tea 1383.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s wife D carries on the printing business from around 1986 to Jinju-si with the trade name “F”, and the Plaintiff carries on the printing business of “G” at the same place as “F” from April 27, 2017, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells tapes and other products.
B. From January 29, 2016 to March 31, 2017, the Defendant supplied labels, tapes, etc. to “F” operated by D, and issued a tax invoice in the name of D.
C. Around June 2017, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with goods to “G” operated by the Plaintiff by the year 2017, and applied for a payment order under the court 2017 tea1383 (hereinafter “instant price for the goods”). On July 4, 2017, the Defendant received a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 38,757,189 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 11, 2017 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was served to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2017, and became final and conclusive on July 25, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, 2017
4. As the business registration of “G” was made on April 2017, there was no supply of goods from the Defendant, and even if not, the instant goods payment obligation was settled at KRW 30,204,99 after the instant payment order, as well as the partial repayment thereof. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff continued to use the trade name after the Plaintiff acquired the business of “G” from D, and that it constitutes a business takeover for mutual speed under Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant goods payment obligation.
B. 1) Whether the Plaintiff is a transferee of the business which belongs to the Plaintiff’s trade name or not, Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act is “the transferee.”