부당이득금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 8, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company for the purpose of evading obligations, the establishment of the new company has abused the company system for the purpose of unlawful achievement of the purpose of evading obligations of the existing company. Therefore, the assertion that two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible in light of the principle of trust and good faith, and the creditors of the existing company may demand the performance of obligations against either of the two companies.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da66892 Decided November 12, 2004). Whether an existing company has been used as a corporate personality of another company with the intent to evade its obligations should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the management status or asset status at the time of closure of the existing company, the existence and degree of assets used by the existing company to another company, the assets transferred from an existing company to an existing company, and whether reasonable consideration has been paid in cases where the existing company has assets transferred to another company.
(2) The Plaintiff entered into a contract with C (hereinafter “C”) on April 1, 201 and C (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) to lease the Plaintiff’s property among sand screening machines located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and to pay the Plaintiff monthly rent of KRW 3 million (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C (hereinafter “C”) on Apr. 1, 2013 and the Plaintiff on Apr. 31, 201, for the prohibition of possession or disposal of corporeal movables as of Apr. 28, 2016, and for the prohibition of possession or disposal of corporeal movables as of Apr. 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with C (hereinafter “C”) on Apr. 1, 2013, and on Apr. 31, 2014, the Plaintiff received a decision of acceptance from C, 2014.