1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff’s assertion

The summary is that the defendant company is substantially the same as the non-party company, and thus, according to the legal principles of abuse of corporate personality, the non-party company should bear the goods payment liability against the plaintiff in accordance with the first instance judgment

As the representative director of the non-party company, the defendant B established the non-party company in order to evade the obligation to pay the goods to the plaintiff of the non-party company in the course of performing his duties. The defendant B is responsible for compensating the amount equivalent to the goods price under the judgment of the court of first instance in the related case.

Judgment

If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company for the purpose of evading debts, the establishment of the new company has abused the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading debts of the existing company. Thus, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible under the principle of 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 97Da21604, Nov. 19, 2001; 2002Da66892, Nov. 12, 2004); and whether a company has used another company’s corporate personality with the intent to evade obligations of the existing company should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as management status or asset status at the time of closure of the existing company; whether and to what extent the existing company has used to another company; whether the existing company has assets transferred to the existing company; whether reasonable consideration has been paid in cases where the existing company has assets transferred to another company.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 13.5.