beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Defendant B Company 129,350,000 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the parties’ assertion are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except where “F” of the second 11 of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to be “P”, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The defendants' judgment as to the main safety defense of the defendants is final and conclusive a payment order filed by the plaintiff with the previous company, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is identical with the previous company. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is identical with the judgment for confirmation of the previous company and the parties and the subject matter of lawsuit are identical, so the plaintiff'
On the other hand, as seen earlier, it was acknowledged that the payment order ordering the Plaintiff to pay the goods price of KRW 129,350,000 to the previous company and the damages for delay was finalized. However, the above payment order does not recognize res judicata and it cannot be deemed that it does not affect the Defendants. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion based on this premise is without merit.
3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company
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 its obligations, the establishment of the new company is abused the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading its obligations, so the assertion that two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible under 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 delivered on November 12, 2004). In this context, whether a company has been used as a corporate body of another company with intent to evade the obligations of the existing company is the management status or asset status at the time of closure of the existing company, and the existing company is another company.