A. The Plaintiff is a company that engaged in the Do and retail business of medicine and food, and supplied medicine to Nonparty B and the Defendant. The Plaintiff is a company that operated a DNA pharmacy (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) in Jeonnam-do (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”). The Defendant is a person who received the instant pharmacy from Nonparty B as follows:

B. On October 30, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract on transfer or takeover of the right to pay B premium of KRW 350,000,000 and take over the instant pharmacy (hereinafter “instant contract”) with B, and entered into an agreement on transfer or takeover of the right to take over the instant pharmacy under the terms and conditions attached to the said contract (hereinafter “instant agreement on succession of the balance”) with the effect that the Plaintiff will succeed to the obligation to pay the drug proceeds to the Plaintiff as follows.

Article 5 (Incidental Conditions) The succession to each business partner under mutual agreement between the transferor and the transferee shall be as follows:

OTC (general drugs), non-pharmaceuticals, sanitary articles, pharmacy cosmetics, the transferee decides to succeed to all the balance.

다. ETC(전문약) 및 도매 거래처는 양도인과 양수인의 합의 하에 다우약품, 삼일약품, 쥴릭 외에는 잔고를 승계하지 않기로 한다.

C. The Plaintiff acquired the instant right also stated that the value of the medicine, etc. supplied to B on credit until the time of the contract was KRW 215,00,000,000, and the Defendant entered into a transaction agreement with the Plaintiff on October 31, 2012, and agreed to succeed to the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff pursuant to the balance succession agreement with the Plaintiff, and that “B pharmacist of the D pharmacy, who closed down as of October 31, 2012, will regularly succeed to the amount of medicine payment that the Plaintiff would have to pay to D Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. to D, with the total supply status (Evidence No. 3) (Evidence No. 3).”

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 [the defendant asserts that Gap evidence No. 2 (Agreement on Trade) and No. 3 (the total status of the delivery of goods is forged, but the above agreement and the above agreement.