1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From November 25, 2011, C had been engaged in the non-pharmaceutical drugs distribution business under the trade name “E” from the building located in Busan District Office D (hereinafter “instant building”). On December 31, 2014, C closed the said place of business on December 31, 2014. On June 1, 2012, F was engaged in the wholesale and retail business of health functional beverages with the trade name “H” from the Busan District captain-gun G, and the said place of business was closed on November 30, 2015.

B. On May 10, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) endorsed and transferred one promissory note with the name of KRW 100 million at the face value from I; (b) July 8, 2014; and (c) May 2, 2014; (b) the payment place; (c) Gyeongnam Bank Co., Ltd.; and (d) the issuer’s representative C (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”); and (c) presented the instant Promissory Notes to the Gyeongnam Bank on July 10, 2014; and (d) refused payment as non-transaction.

C. Meanwhile, on May 16, 2013, the Defendant runs the wholesale and retail business of non-pharmaceutical drugs with the trade name of the building in Busan Shipping Daegu and 539, “K,” and around January 2016, the location of the said place of business.

The instant building entered in the subsection was relocated to the instant building.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant place of business”). 【The Defendant’s place of business (based on recognition / [this case’s place of business] written evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply], and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The parties' assertion 1) In light of the following facts: (a) the address of the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea operated by the Defendant is the same as that of the E’s domicile operated by the Defendant; (b) the Defendant merged E with the Defendant’s website of the instant workplace; (c) the Defendant used the trade name used by F as it is; and (d) the Defendant has been continuously serving in the Defendant’s workplace; (b) the Defendant is liable to pay the instant bill to the Plaintiff as a transferee of the business, who belongs to E or H’s trade name. (c) The Defendant posted a somewhat exaggerated publication of the history of the instant workplace for the purpose of promoting the Defendant’s business; and (d) only uses the street and design identical