1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 16,650,388 and its relation to the Plaintiff from May 8, 2014 to October 16, 2014.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence 1-2, 3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, and Gap evidence 4 as to the cause of the claim, Eul operated a mutual restaurant with the trade name "D" (hereinafter "instant restaurant") from May 30, 201 to April 24, 201 and closed down on April 1, 201, the defendant acquired the above restaurant from Eul on April 7, 201, registered the same trade name as that of the previous restaurant and operated the restaurant of this case on April 7, 2014, the plaintiff supplied the goods of this case to the restaurant of this case by April 24, 201, and the plaintiff supplied the goods of this case as of May 38, 2014.

On the other hand, Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "if a business transferee continues to use the name of the transferor, a transferee shall also be liable for the claims of a third party arising from the business of the transferor." According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant takes over and operates the restaurant of this case from B, and uses the trade name of the restaurant of this case "D" as it is. Thus, the defendant is liable for the repayment of the goods price liability to the plaintiff in B arising from the business of the restaurant of this case pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 8, 2014 to October 16, 2014, which is the delivery date of the instant decision on performance recommendation, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 17, 2014 to the date of full payment.

2. The judgment of the defendant on the defendant's assertion: ① The restaurant in this case is a franchise restaurant, and even if the defendant operated a restaurant with the same trade name as that of the previous restaurant, Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act does not apply; ② The plaintiff is the defendant Eul.