1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is a E and auditor who has exercised management rights as the representative director of B, and his wife F et al. who participated in management had been incorporated in succession with L and the defendant who are substantially identical in the form and content of the company in order to evade the plaintiff's obligations to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant does not assert that the plaintiff, the creditor of B, has a separate legal personality, and therefore, the plaintiff is liable to perform its indemnity obligation to the plaintiff like B.

B. 1) In a case where 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 existing company system for the purpose of evading debts. Thus, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality cannot be permitted in light of the principle of trust and good faith to the creditors of the existing company. Therefore, a creditor of the existing company is entitled to claim the repayment of debts against any one of the above two companies. This legal doctrine applies to a case where a company uses another company, the form and content of which are substantially identical in the existing company for the purpose of evading debts of the existing company. Whether a company uses another legal personality with the intent to evade debts 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, existence and degree of assets useful to another company, whether the existing company has assets transferred to the existing company, and whether the reasonable price has been paid (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da472, May 13, 2011).