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 grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance, and even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance shows the following items: Gap evidence No. 21 to 25, Eul evidence No. 27, which were additionally examined by the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are justified

Therefore, the reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is that the following portions are corrected among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that part between Chapters 6, 15, and 7, and 6, of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal as follows:

Part 3, "25.94,760 won" in Part 5 shall be corrected as "25,94,760 won". Part 5 of Part 4, "23" shall be corrected as "23,27 evidence". Part 5, "20 of Part 5, "the instant supply contract" shall be corrected as "the instant 1 contract." Part 6, "the instant 2 contract" shall be corrected as "the instant 2 contract in Part 5," "the instant 5," and part 6, "the above contract" shall be corrected as "the instant 2 contract." Part 5, which was revised as "the instant 2 contract."

⑻ 피고는 원고를 상대로 서울중앙지방법원 2017가합518101로 상호사용금지등 청구의 소를 제기하였는데, 그 주된 청구원인은 ‘① 원고가 부정한 목적으로 피고의 영업으로 오인할 수 있는 상호를 사용하고 있으므로, 상법 제23조 제1항에 근거하여 인터폰, 경보기, 디지털 도어락, 홈네트워크, 출입통제시스템 등의 소프트웨어 및 하드웨어 제조, 판매 및 설치 영업에 관하여 ‘D'라는 상호의 사용금지를 구하는 것과, ② G으로부터 양수받은 이 사건 제1계약의 취소로 인한 공금대금반환채권에 기한...