logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단9336
사해행위취소
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 15,094,500 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from July 2, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (including each number), the head of Dong Daegu District Tax Office of this Court, the results of the response to the fact-finding to the dispute resolution committee and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. The Plaintiff’s product price claim 1) The Plaintiff is a corporation that engages in wholesale business, such as negligence and hydrogen, etc.

3) On August 24, 2015, to November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied KRW 55,947,140, such as negligence, to the LAB, which was not paid KRW 15,094,520 out of the price of supply by the LAB. (B) The Defendant completed the registration of incorporation on February 5, 2016.

2. On February 12, 2016, the Defendant registered his/her business with his/her trade name as “stock company B”, “T, 2nd floor”, and “A” in the name of “B” and “A”. The Defendant is engaged in a compound restaurant business by using physical facilities used by B in the name of “B” and “A”.

2. The defendant's liability for the debt of the price for goods in the bankruptcy planB;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant continues to use the property of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which is "A" and has been operated by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which belongs to the trade name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. Therefore, the defendant is responsible for the repayment of the commodity price debt to the plaintiff in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., in accordance with Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act. 2) The defendant's argument did not conclude a contract for business takeover with the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and did not succeed to the personal employment relationship of the

B. Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides that if a transferee continues to use a transferor’s trade name, a transferee is also liable to repay a third party’s claim arising from the transferor’s business (Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act).

arrow