1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added a new judgment on the argument that the court of first instance renders, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the non-party company is not liable for the non-party company's business takeover without the special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders under Articles 374 (1) 1 and 3 and 434 of the Commercial Act when entering into the contract for the business takeover of this case.

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the non-party company did not undergo a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders while entering into the contract for the transfer of the business of this case.

In addition, in light of the purport of Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, which provides for the liability of a transferee of business who employs a trade name, it is not necessary to place restrictions on what constitutes the cause of mutual continuity in order to hold the transferee of business liable for the liability of the transferee of business who employs the trade name, and there is sufficient fact that it is mutual continuity. The case where the agreement on the transfer or use of the trade name is invalidated or cancelled as well as where the agreement on the transfer or use of the trade name is nullified or cancelled, or the trade name is used without permission is used without permission shall be included in the mutual continuity under Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17123, 17130, Jan. 15, 2009). However, as seen above, the defendant used the business transfer of the business in question in the non-party company’s roof or business mark after the conclusion of the instant contract on the transfer of business, and thus, acknowledged the non-party company as argued 39363,6363.