logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2020.02.06 2019다270217
구상금
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court determined that (1) as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of indemnity against B, the Defendant, as a transferee of the business, was not liable for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s amount of indemnity against B, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for amount of indemnity, and (2) as to the claim for amount of subrogation, the Plaintiff has a legitimate interest to repay B’s amount of indemnity as a guarantor, and thus, the Plaintiff acquired the legal subrogation right to subrogate the D Bank, which is a creditor, as to B, and the above amount of subrogated amount was already transferred to B, since the claim for amount of subrogation was already transferred to the former creditor, the Defendant, as a transferee of business belonging to the trade name, was jointly and severally liable for the amount of subrogated amount.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides, where a transferee continues to use a transferor’s trade name, that the transferor is still liable for the debt of a third party arising from the business of the transferor, and the transferee is still liable for the debt of the transferor as a primary debtor. However, it is difficult to deem that the above provision allows the transferee to succeed to the status of the guarantor with respect to the business funds of the transferor. Even if the transferor does not require the maturity of the debt of the third party as at the time of the transfer of the business, the claim of the third party liable under the above provision should have occurred at the time of the transfer of business, and it cannot be said that the transferee is liable for the near future claims that might have

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da51569 Decided February 13, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35656 Decided December 9, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Act are stipulated.

arrow