1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “C”.

The Plaintiff supplied paints to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) operated by E from June 2015 to December 2016, 2016, but the Nonparty Company did not pay KRW 31,500,500 to the Plaintiff.

However, E established a defendant company with the same type or content as that of the defendant company on the ground of a relative F for the purpose of evading the purchase price of goods against the plaintiff of the non-party company. Thus, the plaintiff can claim against the defendant company the price of goods against the non-party company.

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 31,50,500 won for the price of goods and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant Company G established the Defendant Company on March 15, 2016 in order to operate in the form of an agent of the non-party Company, and the latter is a major shareholder by participating in the capital increase and becomes a representative director, and the name of EF is not the name of EF to establish the Defendant Company.

Therefore, the defendant company has no obligation to repay the debt of the non-party company.

2. 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 its corporate system for the purpose of evading its obligations. Therefore, 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 trust and good faith.

As such, a creditor of an existing company may also claim the performance of an obligation against either of the above two companies (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da44531, May 12, 1995; 2002Da66892, Nov. 12, 2004). Such a legal doctrine applies to a company, the form of which is substantially identical to that of the company for the purpose of evading its obligation.