1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant who ordered payment below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 11, 13 through 20 (including the branch numbers, if not specially indicated; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

The plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacture and sale of the original body with the trade name of "D".

Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial has been engaged in the wholesale and retail business of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I.S. in the name of "E" from February 10, 2000.

The defendant is a company with the purpose of textile wholesale and retail business.

B. The Plaintiff supplied the original unit to E at the request of B from March 2010 to the end of the end of 2015 (hereinafter “the first original unit transaction”), and the outstanding amount of the original unit payment arising from the said transaction was KRW 384,534,045.

C. B: (a) on May 1, 2015, the Defendant Company was established; (b) on the same day, G’s husband and wife was appointed as the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B On June 2015, 2015, the first police officer sent the Defendant Company’s business registration certificate (Evidence A No. 8) to the Plaintiff, upon the request of the Defendant Company that “it is difficult to conduct financial transactions on the face of bills, to establish the Defendant Company, and to continue its business under the name of the Defendant Company.”

During the period from the business to September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with a total of KRW 136,510,212, as stated in the “sales Details” column, as stated in the “Sales Contents” column, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 22,189,240 (=a total of KRW 145,389,240, KRW 76,80,000,00) out of the details of the second main transaction in the attached table during the same period.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant Company asserting the Plaintiff is a business entity substantially identical to B or E operated by it, and that B is formally intended for the purpose of evading the Plaintiff’s obligations to the Plaintiff.