1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Seoul Western District Court dated June 4, 2018 against the defendant's plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff operated a marina with the trade name “E” on the first floor of the underground floor of the building located in the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government (D), and transferred the entire business including the Plaintiff’s obligations to the Plaintiff’s transaction partner by subleting the marina to F and G on November 18, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant transfer of business”). B.

However, the lessor of the above building continued to maintain the Plaintiff’s business registration and continued to use the trade name “E” which was previously used until December 31, 2015, without consent to the sub-lease contract, and continued to use the same until December 31, 2015. The amount of goods unpaid to the Defendant as of the date of such cessation was KRW 11,973,293.

C. On June 4, 2018, the Defendant received a payment order against the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 11,973,293 and the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from January 1, 2016 to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The original copy of the payment order was served on the Plaintiff on June 22, 2018 and became final and conclusive on July 7, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since a person who actually operates the aforesaid marina after the transfer of the business of this case and was supplied with goods such as clothes from the defendant, since he is F and G, the debtor of the price for the goods unpaid is F and G, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case that the debtor is the plaintiff shall be dismissed.

As to this, the defendant is the plaintiff who actually operates the feet and received goods from the defendant, and is not the plaintiff.

Even if the plaintiff is obligated to repay the price of the goods in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act.