beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was newly established and registered as a new company; and (b) at the time of the establishment, the trade name was “scopication of a stock company”; and (c) registered the change to its mission as of March 2, 2017.
B. The Plaintiff owned a claim for construction cost and a claim for goods price in excess of KRW 500 million against the chemical plant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tancheon Plant”). However, on November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for corporate rehabilitation with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court for a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures on December 9, 201 and the decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan on May 16, 2017, respectively.
[Reasons for Recognition]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant acquired the business of the chemical plant and belongs to the trade name, thus, the plaintiff, the creditor of the chemical plant, is liable to pay the plaintiff's claim for the chemical plant.
B. The transfer of business under the relevant legal doctrine refers to the transfer of a company organized for a certain business purpose, i.e., human and material organization as a whole while maintaining its identity, and whether such transfer of business has been made should not be determined by what kind of business property is transferred to any extent, but by which the organization can function as a whole or an important part of its business organization by maintaining its existing business organization.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17123, 17130 Decided January 15, 2009). C.
Judgment
There is no evidence to prove that the defendant acquired the business from the chemical plant.
Rather, as a result of the fact-finding inquiries into the evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the National Health Insurance Corporation of this Court, and Seoul Central District Court, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively considered the whole purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the employees and 4-5 in the defendant company, and more than 30 in the chemical plant, work for both companies.