1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the wholesale and retail business of fishery products under the trade name of “D” in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and the Defendant is a person who, on May 10, 2017, took over from E the second floor of the FF building in Busan-gu, Busan-gun, and currently operates the restaurant (hereinafter “instant middle restaurant”).

B. E was supplied with fishery products from the Plaintiff, but at the time the Defendant received the restaurant from the Plaintiff, the amount of unpaid fishery products to the Plaintiff was 43,749,400 won (hereinafter “instant outstanding amount”).

C. From May 10, 2017 to July 5, 2017, the Defendant was supplied with fishery products by the Plaintiff. The Defendant paid KRW 4,591,500 on June 9, 2017 as the price for the said fishery products, and paid KRW 4,643,70 on July 12, 2017, and there is no unpaid amount for the fishery products supplied by the Defendant.

On the other hand, on May 11, 2017, E paid KRW 5 million out of the outstanding amounts to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant remitted KRW 15 million, which is part of the money that the Defendant is obligated to pay to E, to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, testimony of the first instance witness E, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion 1) The Defendant agreed to accept the obligation of the instant outstanding amount at the time of accepting the instant restaurant. Even if not, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the instant outstanding amount as mutually bound assignee under Article 42 of the Commercial Act. 2) The conjunctive assertion Plaintiff, in subrogation of E, shall claim the Defendant to pay a claim of at least KRW 20 million against the Plaintiff.

B. As to the 1st argument, the following circumstances revealed in full view of the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① the Defendant paid part of the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff even after taking over the restaurant in this case. The Plaintiff did not accept the outstanding amount from the Defendant.