2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

A. The Plaintiff filed an order to pay KRW 3,880,000 with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2018Hu18936 against the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). On November 22, 2018, the Plaintiff issued an order to pay the Plaintiff the payment of KRW 3,880,000 per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment.

The above payment order became final and conclusive on December 12, 2018 because the non-party company did not raise an objection despite being served with the above payment order.

(hereinafter the above payment order of this case is the payment order of this case, and the above debt of the non-party company against the plaintiff of this case is the payment obligation of this case) B.

On the other hand, the Defendant was established on September 7, 2018 as a company with the aim of wholesale and retail business of domestic and foreign fishery products and freezing fishery products.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the company substantially identical to the non-party company, and the use of the defendant for the purpose of evading debts is an abuse of corporate personality.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to perform the obligation to pay for the goods in this case to the plaintiff of the non-party company.

B. If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in its form and content for the purpose of evading debts, the establishment of the new company is abused the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading debts of the existing company. Thus, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company cannot be permitted in light of the principle of good faith.

Therefore, the creditor of the existing company can claim the performance of the obligation against either of the above two companies.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da66892 Decided November 12, 2004).