logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.16 2015가단5359849
대여금
Text

1. Defendant A’s KRW 112,913,903 and its importance

A. From July 21, 2015 to April 19, 2016, for KRW 79,675,000.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

(a)a statement of the claim;

same as the reasons for the claim.

(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession based on the basis of recognition (Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Defendant B, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, acquired the “C” restaurant business from Defendant A.

Defendant B is liable to repay Defendant A’s loans on the basis of the mutual responsibilities of a transferee of business under Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act.

B. The Plaintiff confirmed the current status of the restaurant business operated by the Defendant A, sales (2.6 million won in 2010, 211, 21.21 billion won in 201, 253.5 million won in 201), etc., and lent each of the loans to the Defendant A, on February 7, 2013, KRW 88 million in general corporate capital, and KRW 30 million in general corporate capital on June 14, 2013 (hereinafter “each of the instant credit transaction agreements”).

(2) On November 8, 2013, Defendant B entered into an agreement with Defendant A to transfer or take over all of Defendant A’s C restaurant licenses (business reporting rights) and facilities, and completed the business succession report to the head of the route of the same day.

Defendant B completed the business registration on November 15, 2013 as “C”.

3) Defendant B transferred a restaurant to D on August 6, 2015, and D changed its trade name into E, and currently is currently in operation. [In the case of the entries in the evidence No. 7-1 and No. 7-2 of the grounds for recognition, each fact-finding with respect to the head of Jongno-gu Public Health Center, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

C. 1) In the event that a transferee continues to use a transferor’s trade name, the transferee is also liable to repay the third party’s claims arising from the transferor’s business (Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act stipulating the liability of the transferee of the business, which belongs to the trade name, generally, the debtor’s credit extended to the business obligee is most substantially secured by the debtor’s business property, and thus, the transferee is liable for the transfer of business.

arrow