A. On February 16, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) and supplied goods until the end of December 2017. However, the Defendant Co., Ltd did not pay an amount equivalent to KRW 89,69,223.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 89,69,223, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 21, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

(b) Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1 through 18, and 4 of Article 208(3)3(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, the basis for recognition, respectively.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the defendant D should pay the price of the goods to the plaintiff of the defendant company jointly with the defendant company in accordance with the legal principle of denial of legal personality.

B. According to the evidence No. 4, although Defendant D is found to be the representative director of the Defendant Company, the above facts are acknowledged, the Defendant Company was in the form of a legal entity, but is merely merely taking the form of a legal entity, and is merely merely the involvement company of Defendant D.

or used as a means to avoid applying the law to Defendant D.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da82490, Feb. 25, 2010). However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company is justified, and the claim against the defendant D is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.