A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that manufactures and sells the decoration metal, aluminium pipes, etc. for building use, and Defendant A is a corporation that manufactures and sells subsidiary materials, etc. for Aluminium furniture. Defendant B is the representative director of Defendant A, Defendant C is the auditor of Defendant A, and Defendant B and C are women.

B. From January 1, 2013 to April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied goods to Defendant A with a total of KRW 168,087,832 claims for the purchase of goods. Defendant A, on November 11, 2013, issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note amounting to KRW 52,028,480 for the payment of the purchase of goods, but the said note was defaulted due to non-transaction.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant A discontinued his business around March 2014, and the Defendant C opened the business as a personal business entity on January 2, 2014 with the purpose of manufacturing aluminium furniture and subsidiary materials.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) as the selective claim of the Plaintiff (1) is obligated to pay the above amount to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 168,087,832 to the Defendant A in total. Defendant A is a company run by the Defendant B as a de facto operator and a controlling shareholder. Defendant A is an auditor of Defendant A and Defendant C, a parent of Defendant B, and operates the same business as Defendant A with the intent to evade the Defendant’s obligation to pay the goods to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant A and D are a company in fact controlled by the Defendant B, which are identical in accordance with the legal doctrine of the denial of legal personality, and jointly with Defendant A, a representative of Defendant C, a representative of D, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the goods payment obligation of Defendant A, KRW 168,087,832, and its delay damages.

(2) Defendant A and C did not establish D in the name of Defendant C for the purpose of evading Defendant A’s obligation, and thus cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

(b).