임금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C (hereinafter “C”) seeking payment of wages, retirement allowances, and security account (hereinafter “paid wages, etc.”) from March 2016 to July 2016, and the said court rendered a judgment that C shall pay to the Plaintiff 24,798,940 won and money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 11, 2016 to the date of full payment.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. 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 is abused the company system for the purpose of evading obligations of the existing company. Thus, 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.
(2) The court below’s determination as to whether the existing company’s corporate personality has been used with the intent to evade the obligations of the existing company should be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including management status or asset status at the time of closure of the existing company’s business, whether the existing company has become a company to another company and its degree, whether the existing company has assets transferred to an existing company to another company, and whether the existing company’s corporate personality has paid due consideration, in cases where the existing company has assets transferred to the existing company to another company.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da13690, Apr. 28, 2016). (B)
The following circumstances, i.e., C was established around February 201, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the results of the fact inquiry into Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, D of the first instance court, and Seo-gu Daejeon Tax Office, and the overall purport of the pleadings. The defendant was established on May 27, 201, and the defendant and C are the defendants and C.