beta
Text
1. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,00,000 as well as to the day of full payment from September 23, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A
A. The Plaintiff indicated the claim 1) on December 17, 2014, the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”).
b)the Telecommunications Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) among the Newly constructed construction works of Gangnam-gu Seoul E building;
(2) As the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project on or around May 2015, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 23 million for the unpaid construction cost and damages for delay therefrom.
B. Article 208(3)3 of the Basic Civil Procedure Act (amended by service by public notice)
2. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and C
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that Defendant B and C have the obligation to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal principle of denial of legal personality, as it is merely an individual enterprise in which Defendant B and C borrowed the form of a legal entity as an oligopolistic shareholder, but it is merely an individual enterprise in which Defendant B and C are the mother and child.
B. 1) Determination 1) If a company appears to be a private company in the hinterland of the legal entity, as a matter of principle, it shall be sentenced to punishment to the extent that the name of the company is only and is not an individual business (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90982, Sept. 11, 2008) in light of the law or the articles of incorporation, such as whether the property and the business of the company were mixed to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish between the company and the hinterland, whether the decision-making procedure provided for in the law or the articles of incorporation was not followed, such as whether the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors was not held, the degree of the company's capital failure, the size of business and the number of employees (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90982, Sept. 11, 2008). According to the statements in evidence 1-2, Defendant B and C is recognized, but only such facts are given to the above individual company of the above Defendants behind the legal entity of the defendant A.