2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business, such as chemical products and industrial spirits, under the trade name of “C”.

B. From April 11, 2014 to July 2014, the Plaintiff supplied D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with an aggregate of KRW 87,037,500, including IPA (i.e., Epropy alcohol) and Eprophan, and Nonparty Company paid KRW 37,78,150 out of the price of the goods to the Plaintiff, such as the bill payment of KRW 17,985,00 on May 12, 2014, and did not pay KRW 49,259,350 as of the date of payment.

C. Meanwhile, on June 24, 2014, Nonparty Company filed for rehabilitation with the Cheongju District Court 2014 Gohap5004, and the rehabilitation procedure was commenced as of August 25, 2014, and thereafter the rehabilitation procedure was abolished on December 17, 2014.

The defendant has served as a representative director of the non-party company E who is the representative of the non-party company, and has its head office in Jincheon-gun G, Jin-gun, the location of the head office of the non-party company.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, part of Gap's 1-9 (including virtual numbers), and whether all pleadings are held

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is the representative of F, who is the child of the representative E of the non-party company, and the location of the non-party company and its head office is the same as that of the non-party company, and since the non-party company was established with the intent to evade the debt, the defendant's legal personality should be denied. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay the non-party company's debt to the plaintiff.

B. In conclusion, if the existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the company in order to evade its obligations, the establishment of the new company constitutes an abuse of the company system in order to achieve the unlawful purpose of evading its obligations.

In this case, the assertion that the above two companies have separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company can be allowed in the principle of good faith.