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

A. The Plaintiff is a commodity-price creditor for the F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “F”) and Defendant E sent an internal director of the F Co., Ltd. F in-house director and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

B. Each place of business of the above two corporations, Defendant D’s “G”, Defendant E and C’s “H” (Defendant C and D were simultaneously established by Defendant C and D Co., Ltd., the co-representative director), is Kimpo-si I.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 6-10 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that, in fact, the defendant A shall be a corporation identical to F and F, which has abused the legal personality for the purpose of evading the debt of F and thus, the plaintiff shall bear the debt for the purchase of goods against the plaintiff. The defendant C, D, and E shall act in collusion with the defendant C, D, and E with a separate company or in evading the debt of the defendant B on the ground that they are the third party. Thus, the defendant C, D, and E shall seek a payment equivalent to the amount of the goods price debt.

B. First of all, if Defendant B denies the liability of Defendant B with respect to the debt of the Fund in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on the ground of a separate corporate personality even though it is in fact identical with the Fund in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to deem that two corporations in fact are the same, or that Defendant B abused the corporation system in order to evade the debt, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion against

C. Next, if Defendant C, D, and E conspired to evade the debt of Defendant C, F, and Defendant B, it is difficult to recognize the liability of the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff as seen earlier, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed that Defendant C, D, and E conspired to evade the debt of the Plaintiff and committed a tort. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.