There are two issues in this case: whether the gas-station lease contract amounts to an acquisition of a business, and, if it is not an acquisition of a business, whether Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act can be applied by analogy. First, this case is a lease of a business. Under existing case law, a business is recognized only when three requirements are met: profit-seeking, continuity, and external recognizability. Both cases are businesses, but in this case ownership of the gas station did not pass to A and remained with the defendant, so this case is a lease of a business, not a transfer of a business.

The question then is the analogical application of Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act. However, the Supreme Court held that, for a lease of a business, there is no separate statutory provision like Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, and that the business property A had taken as security at the time was separate from the lessee, so there was no need to protect the creditor to the point of imposing joint and several (non-genuine) liability on the defendant. On this, there was a split between the position that analogical application of Article 42(1) is appropriate and the position that it is not. The position that analogical application of Article 42(1) is necessary argues that, under the appearance principle, where the gas station's trade name continues to be used it is hard to know whether the lease contract has ended, so the lessor should also be held liable for repayment to protect creditors. However, people's view is that this judgment, in line with past precedents, declined to apply Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act by analogy to a lease of a business.

Laws and judgments change with the times. For example, the past precedent that women could not be members of a jongjung (clan association) was a case in which the Supreme Court invalidated the customary law in 2010 on the ground that it contravened the principle of gender equality. In general, however, judges tend to be conservative in law-making, so even where there is some justification, judges do not simply create law; and even if they do, strict justification is required to fill gaps in the statute at a level that is consistent and harmonious with the entire legal system. Therefore, when there is a gap in the statute, analogical application is widely used. Gaps in the law include open gaps and hidden gaps. An open gap is a case where no relevant statute exists at all, and a hidden gap is a case where a relevant provision exists but its application does not fit its purpose. Analogical application is mainly used for open gaps, but there are also cases where no legal provision is available to borrow. In such cases, supplementation by jori (the nature of things/reason) takes place.

Even now, there are many debates about legal disputes involving analogical application, jori and the like. Since the Supreme Court generally tends to maintain its existing positions, it is worth watching carefully what precedents the Supreme Court will hand down on these issues in the future.

For the general provisions of the Commercial Act and the law of commercial transactions, the key is to understand why special rules different from the Civil Act are needed, so organizing provisions that contrast with the Civil Act, such as forfeiture-of-pledge agreements, commercial liens and the liability of a transferee who continues to use the trade name, together with case law, is useful for both assignments and exams. Comparing the three cases in this material within the same framework clearly shows how the basic ideals of commercial law, speed of transactions and protection of appearance, work in actual cases. Practicing comparing the requirements of civil liens and commercial liens, as in the building-materials payment case, also helps in understanding practical problems related to real-estate auctions.