광고대금등
The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant A is dismissed.
Of the judgment of the first instance, payment is ordered below.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company running advertising agency business, etc., and the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) closed its business on October 1, 2014 for the business of producing, importing and distributing film, producing and distributing video products, etc.
B. The Plaintiff, at the request of the Defendant A from January 2013 to June 2014, performed the duties of production of film ice, advertisement agency, etc., and the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 5,00,000 as a result of the discontinuance of business by the Defendant A.
C. Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a company established on June 30, 2014 for the business of importing and distributing motion pictures, producing, distributing, distributing, distributing and distributing video products, and producing and distributing Internet content.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine whether the appeal against the defendant A is lawful ex officio by the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant A.
An appeal may only be filed against a judgment unfavorable to himself/herself, and an appeal against a judgment in favor of the whole winning judgment is unlawful as there is no benefit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20235 Decided July 13, 2007, etc.). The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of the amount stated in the claim against the Defendant A, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant A in whole, is apparent in the record. As such, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant A filed against the first instance judgment that won the entire winning judgment is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.
3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not only a business takeover that belongs to the Defendant A’s trade name, but also a company that has been established by abusing its legal personality to evade the Defendant A’s obligations, and thus, the said unpaid service amount is jointly and severally with the Defendant A in accordance with Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act or the legal doctrine of denial of legal personality.