1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a stock company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling metal containers, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are a stock company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling paints.

The Plaintiff manufactured the paint container and supplied it to the non-party company by October 2013. The balance of the obligation for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant obligation”) is KRW 11,126,310.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserts that there is no dispute, Gap's 2, 4, and 8 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is liable to pay to the plaintiff 1,126,310 won of the debt of this case and damages for delay on the following grounds.

The actual founder and operator of the non-party company and the defendant are C.

C Around March 2014, Daejeon District Court established the defendant, which is practically the same company, in order to continue its business as the non-party company was closed ex officio, and the non-party company and the defendant are the same as the product.

Therefore, since the non-party company and the defendant are practically the same company, the defendant's legal personality should be denied, and the defendant's assertion as a separate corporation constitutes abuse of rights.

The defendant assumed the debt of this case from the non-party company.

The defendant acquired the business of the non-party company as it is, and the defendant's product placement column in the Internet shopping mall showed both "B" and "A" as the defendant's trade name.

In addition, around February 12, 2014, the defendant sent to the plaintiff an official document (Evidence A No. 3) that it would give the plaintiff an opportunity to deal with the details of the transaction to the non-party company without difficulties.

(1) The defendant, on March 201, closes down the non-party company ex officio on the following grounds: (a) the plaintiff's assertion that this assertion is made by the transferee of the business who employs the trade name in accordance with Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act; and (b) the defendant, on the other hand, closes down the non-party company.