1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 8, 2015 to August 5, 2016.

1. On May 6, 2015, B Co., Ltd. (the representative director C, the company’s director C, the company’s trade name on July 4, 2016 changed to D Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) issued an electronic bill with the face value E, face value of KRW 30 million, payee F (representative G), and due date September 5, 2015. After that, the electronic bill was divided into face value of KRW 8 million, KRW 8 million, KRW 7 million, and KRW 7 million.

(2) The Plaintiff, as the final holder of the instant electronic bill, presented the payment of the instant electronic bill to the payment bank (which was located at the same location of the new bank) on the date of payment, but was refused payment on September 7, 2015 on the ground of non-transaction.

On December 31, 2015, Nonparty Company closed its business.

On the other hand, the Defendant established on December 28, 201 with the trade name “C” and changed the trade name to “B” on March 3, 2015, but changed to “B” as of July 4, 2016.

The representative of the defendant is the C's representative of the non-party company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 7-1, 7-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the non-party company and the defendant are practically identical to the non-party company in light of the purpose of the business, the form and content of the company, etc.

On the other hand, the defendant, denying the identity with the non-party company, is disputing the responsibility to pay the electronic bills of this case.

B. (1) The judgment of the Defendant on the Defendant’s principal safety defense is that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant again even though the Plaintiff had attached the real estate owned by the Nonparty Company on the instant electronic bill (Seoul District Court Order 2016Kadan5788, Oct. 21, 2016), which was based on the provisional seizure of the real estate owned by the Nonparty Company.