All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If an existing company established a new company substantially identical to the existing company with a view to evading its debts, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the company system for the purpose of evading its debts. Thus, the assertion that the existing company's creditors have a separate legal personality cannot be permitted in light of the principle of good faith that the existing company has a separate legal personality.

As such, creditors of the existing company may demand the performance of obligations against one of the above two companies.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94472 Decided May 13, 201). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, acknowledged that Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) established the Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) with the content of the corporate form substantially identical for the purpose of evading the obligation to evade the omission obligation that the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) should not build a ready-mixed factory under paragraph (3) of the instant agreement, and accordingly, determined that denying the Defendants’ liability against the Plaintiffs on the ground that Defendant A and Defendant B are separate legal entities would be in violation of the principle of trust and good faith.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on abuse of legal personality.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, in light of the developments and contents of the instant agreement, the lower court, as stated in its reasoning, deemed that the Defendants are obligated not to install a ready-mixed factory, regardless of the issue of access to the village. Thus, even if Defendant A newly built national highways after the instant agreement and Defendant A did not use access roads to the village, such circumstance alone becomes null and void.