1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence 1 through No. 3.

From July 24, 2006 to Oct. 5, 2011, the Plaintiff produced and supplied dice spawn to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). On December 1, 2011, the Daejeon District Court rendered support 201Kahap6567, filed a lawsuit against Nonparty Company on the claim for the payment of the price of the goods for which the Plaintiff sought the attempted amount of 179,951,878 won and the delay damages therefrom, and the said court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on December 21, 2012, and became final and conclusive as it is.

However, the non-party company closed its business around October 31, 201.

On March 22, 2011, the Defendant, a director of the non-party company, was operating the business after setting the business name “B” as its main issue and registered the business name “B” (hereinafter “Defendant business entity”).

The plaintiff of the judgment parties on the cause of claim asserts that the defendant immediately concluded a contract for business transfer and takeover with the non-party company and received all of the business from the non-party company, and that the non-party company's trade name is also used as it is. Thus, the defendant asserts that the business transferee belonging to the non-party company, which is a business transferor, is liable for the payment of the above KRW 179,951,878, which occurred from the business of the non-party company, which is the business transferor, in accordance with Article 42

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the non-party company did not receive all business transfer from the non-party company upon entering into a contract for business transfer and takeover with the non-party company, and that it did not belong to the non-party company's trade name, and that the plaintiff is not liable to pay the non

Judgment

The main issue of this case lies in the acquisition by transfer of the business of the non-party company and its trade name.