매매대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The court's explanation of this case is identical to the statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the plaintiff's new argument as to this case's new argument in the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this case's explanation in accordance with
Judgment on the new argument in this Court
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) Even if the plaintiff cannot directly claim the credit payment of this case against the defendant, the plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of the credit payment of this case under the sales contract of this case, and the defendant acquired the credit payment of this case from C while taking over the management right of this case from C, so the plaintiff exercises the right to claim the payment of the credit payment of this case against the defendant in order to preserve the right to claim the credit payment of this case. 2) The plaintiff applied for the seizure and collection order against C, upon which C applied for the seizure and collection order, C established the defendant for the purpose of evading the credit payment of this case, taken office as the representative director, and went beyond the management right of this case to the defendant.
This is because it abused the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading C's debt, so the defendant is liable to repay the credit payment obligation of this case that C had not been paid to the plaintiff according to the abuse of legal personality.
B. We examine whether C/C has the right to claim the payment of the credit payment of this case against the defendant. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that C/C has taken over the credit payment of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that C’s subrogation claim exists against the Defendant, and this part of the Plaintiff’s claim is part.