beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 101,012,754 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from September 27, 2013 to September 15, 2015; and (b) for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C was engaged in wholesale and retail business of clothing, etc. with the trade name “E” in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D(2).
B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the said C with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Gahap104590, and on September 15, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 101,012,754 and the amount calculated by applying each rate of 6% per annum from September 27, 2013 to September 15, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around December 20, 2016.
C. On August 21, 2013, the Defendant established a company, the purpose of which is clothes, textile wholesale and retail trade, etc., with the second and second floors in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the same location as E, as E, as its domicile.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff holds a claim against C by a judgment, and therefore, C has the right to seek the performance of the claim against C. However, in order to avoid the company's debt, it has not yet passed since C discontinued the above individual enterprise operated by C and established the defendant. The defendant is not only completely identical to the above individual enterprise and its substance, but also is a company established by C by abusing its system or its legal entity to evade the company's debt against C. Thus, C is obligated to pay the claim for the price of goods to the plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. If C’s private enterprise and the Defendant’s existing company established a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the company in order to evade debts, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading debts of the existing company. In such a case, the above two companies asserted that the existing company has a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company.