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. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part of "the point of business takeover" of the 7th written judgment of the court of first instance which is not more than 10 of the 7th written judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The part used in repair "B. 1) In the event a stock company is established by investing in the business of acquiring the business and continuously using its trade name, the concept of the business that has become the object of investment is identical, and the transfer of the business by juristic act is similar to that of the transfer of the business, and it is difficult to distinguish the transfer of the business from the transfer of the business by juristic act from the standpoint of the creditor, and it is difficult for a newly incorporated corporation to distinguish the transfer of the business by external appearance from the position of the creditor. The

(2) On August 2, 1995, in light of the above legal principles, the following facts: (a) in light of the above legal principles, the Defendant: (b) in the name of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da12231, Aug. 22, 1995); (c) in the name of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 95Da12231, Oct. 11, 1999; (b) in the name of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (hereinafter “C”); (c) in the name of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (hereinafter “A”); (d) in the name of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (hereinafter “C”); and (d) in the name of the manufacturer of heavy equipment parts; and (d) the Defendant continued to use the Plaintiff’s business under Article 14 of the Commercial Act, as the Defendant continued to operate the Plaintiff’s business by applying mutatis mutandis the Plaintiff’s mutual agreement.