1. The defendant

A. The Plaintiff A’s KRW 18,843,960 as well as 20% per annum from December 30, 2014 to February 1, 2016.

Ⅰ. Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “If the transferee continues to use the transferor’s trade name, the transferee shall also be liable for the third party’s claim due to the transferor’s business operation.”

The term “business” under Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act refers to a functional asset as an organic integration organized for a certain business purpose. The term “business” refers to a functional asset as an organic combination of tangible and intangible property and economic value that functions as a source of revenue by systematically combining both tangible and intangible property and factual relations with economic value, and the source of profit that systematically combines as such, becomes an object of transaction like one goods. Thus, whether a business transfer can be deemed as a “business transfer” should be determined depending on whether the transferor continues to engage in the same business activity as that of the previous business.

(2) If a business transfer took place on April 14, 1998, the labor relationship of the relevant employee is comprehensively succeeded to the transferor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da15225, Aug. 9, 191; 93Da18938, Nov. 18, 1994; 2002Da70822, Jun. 9, 2005). In principle, the obligation to pay wages and retirement allowances to the previous employees of the transferor is also succeeded to the transferor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da1525, supra). Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides that the transferor is liable for the transferor’s obligation due to the business of the transferor to the transferee who continues to use the trade name.