Liability of a person who continuously uses the previous trade name by taking over the business.

When the defendant continues to use the same trade name after taking over the business from the non-party 2, the defendant is liable to compensate for the loss incurred by the non-party 2 to the third party by taking over the business, which was used by the non-party 2 for the above business.

Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Civil District Court (79Gahap1138)

1. A. The part against Plaintiff 1 in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 46,160,883 won and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from March 7, 1979 to the date of full payment.

C. The plaintiff 1's remaining claims (including claims extended in the trial) are dismissed.

2. All appeals filed by Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and appeals filed by the Defendant against Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be three minutes, and the remaining two shall be borne by the plaintiff 1, and the costs incurred by the plaintiff 2's appeal against the same plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall be borne by the defendant.

4. The above 1.b. part which exceeds the sentence of provisional execution by the original judgment may be provisionally executed.

(Plaintiff 1) The plaintiff 1 shall expand the claim in the trial.

The plaintiffs paid 74,625,650 won to plaintiffs 1, 500 won to plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, and 200,000 won to plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, and 6, and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from March 7, 1979 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant and the provisional execution declaration shall be sought, and the defendant is an application for the return of provisional payments, and the plaintiff is demanding the defendant to pay the amount of 35 million won and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from January 29, 1980 to the date of full payment.

Plaintiff 1 and 2 shall revoke the part against the above plaintiffs in the original judgment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 26,763,447 won, 40 million won, and 5% interest per annum from March 7, 1979 to the date of full payment.

A judgment that litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant and a sentence of provisional execution shall be sought, and the defendant shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

On March 16, 1979: Around 30, the truck (vehicle No. 1 omitted) driven by Plaintiff 1 conflicts with the truck (vehicle No. 2 omitted) operated by Nonparty 1 on the Dong-dong Highway located in the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, which is located in the boundary line, and the facts that the above plaintiff suffered from the injury are not disputed between the parties, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the plaintiff suffered from the injury and there is no dispute between the parties, and the purport of the argument before the oral argument is comprehensively taken into account: (a) No. 1, No. 2, No. 12, No. 12-1, and No. 12-2, the above accident is owned by Nonparty 2 at the time of the accident, and (b) it was provided to the transportation corporation for its operation, but the defendant continued to use the same trade name on May 17, 1979, and the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff 2's children and his parents.

However, in the accident of this case, the defendant argued that the plaintiff 1 was a bus driver at a non-time and neglected to operate the cargo truck at the time of the accident. However, although the bus driver operated the cargo truck at a non-time, it cannot be viewed as his/her own negligence, and there is no evidence to support his/her negligence, and the defendant's assertion is groundless since there is no evidence to support his/her negligence.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Property damage;

(1) Loss monthly income

. The plaintiff was 1 to 5th 7th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 66th 198. 1st 19

(2) Loss bonuses;

If Non-party 4's testimony, such as evidence 13-1 and 2 of No. 13-2, is combined with the testimony of Non-party 4 (title 2 omitted). Since November 1, 1979, a transportation company has to pay an amount equivalent to 240 hours of the Si's basic wage at the end of each year from November 1, 1979 to the end of each year. The Si's basic wage from November 1, 1979 to May 14, 1980 can be recognized as 618 won, the Si's basic wage from May 15, 1980 to 720 won, and since there is no counter-proof that the above plaintiff is entitled to deduction at the rate of 180 days (title 15 x 12-180) per annum at the time of the accident x 3080,4208 won per annum at the time of the accident x 2500,40500 per annum.

(3) Loss retirement pay;

According to the evidence in Paragraph (2) above, the transportation company (title 2 omitted) has received retirement allowances of at least 720 days (30 x 24) of average wage as sought by the plaintiff when it retires from the above company for 24 years until the age of 55, but since the accident of this case has been lost, the company's average wage of 30 days, 75 days of average wage for the person who has served for 2 years, and the person who has served for 3 years or more, according to the continuous continuous training for the above continuous service, and the above plaintiff's average wage of at least 19,688 won is paid. Thus, in the absence of the accident of this case, the above plaintiff can receive retirement allowances of at least 720 days of average wage (30 x 24) as claimed in the attached Table 3 if it is calculated at the present price at the time of the accident.

(4) Medical expenses

According to the appraisal result of the above appraiser 3, the plaintiff 1 needs to perform a sex operation on the face of the injury in the future, and it can be recognized that the amount of 300,000 won is required at the expense of the above appraiser 1.

(5) Therefore, the plaintiff 1 suffered property damage due to the accident of this case shall be KRW 46,380,883. In full view of the following purport: (a) the statement of No. 1-5 (each insurance money deposit table) No. 1-5 (each insurance money) without dispute over the establishment of this case; and (b) the witness of the court below and the non-party 5 (excluding the portion not trusted in the future) and the whole purport of the oral argument, the above plaintiff can be acknowledged that the above plaintiff received KRW 420,00 as damages after the accident of this case; (c) the above witness and the non-party 4 testimony of the court below against this point are not believed; and (d) there are no other supporting materials, so the property damage that the defendant shall pay to the above plaintiff shall be KRW 45,960,83 (46,80,83-420,000) after deducting this from the above amount of property damage.

(b) consolation money;

In light of the empirical rule that not only the plaintiffs themselves but also the other plaintiffs in the above status relationship with the plaintiff 1 suffered severe mental pain, the defendant is obligated to do so with the above mental suffering of the plaintiff 1. In light of the degree of injury, status, circumstances of the accident, degree of negligence, etc. recorded in other records, it is reasonable for the plaintiff 1 to pay 20 million won for the plaintiff 1, and 100,000 won for the plaintiff 2, and 50,000 won for the plaintiff 3,4,5, and 6 respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 a 46,160,883 won to the plaintiff 1 and 100,000 won to the plaintiff 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, and damages for delay at the rate of 50,000 won per annum prescribed in the Civil Act from March 7, 1979 to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for this case is justified within the above scope of recognition. Since the original judgment against the plaintiff 1 is unfair with some conclusion, it is reasonable to accept part of the defendant's appeal, and it is dismissed the remaining claims of the plaintiff 1 including the plaintiff 1's claim as modified and expanded in the trial as above. Since the original judgment against the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff 1 is just in conclusion with the party members, the remaining appeals against the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, and 600 won, and it is without reason to dismiss the appeal as prescribed in Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Calculation List omitted】

Judges Yoon Il-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-young