1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2, 2017, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) issued an electronic bill number D, bill amounting to KRW 28,930,00, and due date on June 30, 2017.

Defendant B divided the foregoing bill on February 7, 2017, and transferred the electronic bill amounting to KRW 20,210,000 (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”) to E as an addressee. On the same day, E endorsed and transferred the said bill to the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal to the Payment Bank on June 30, 2017, which was due date, but refused payment due to non-transaction.

C. Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) was established for the same business purpose as Defendant B on April 27, 2017, and Defendant B reported the closure of business around May 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s human composition, business place, business objective, closure, and establishment timing of officers among the Defendants asserted, Defendant C is a company substantially identical to Defendant B established for the purpose of evading Defendant B’s obligations.

Therefore, Defendant C cannot assert that the Plaintiff, a creditor, is a legal entity separate from Defendant B under the good faith principle, and the Defendants should jointly and severally pay the amount of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff.

B. Around 2015, Defendant B’s representative director H lent KRW 400 million to the Defendants’ assertion F.

F was on the part of the defendant B, and did not receive the benefits and retirement allowances properly.

F had established Defendant C by taking over the existing assets of Defendant B as the repayment order such as the above loan and salary.

Defendant C is not a company established for the purpose of evading Defendant C’s obligations.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B as the issuer of the electronic bill of this case and the amount of KRW 20,120,000 as the issuer of the electronic bill of this case.