(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가단5105083

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가단5105083

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was rendered favorable judgment that “The Defendant shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 181,768,968 won and 181,768,927 won per annum from July 30, 2013 to September 6, 2013 and 20% per annum from the following day to September 6, 2013” based on the claim for reimbursement against the non-party company and C, a joint guarantor, as the guarantor under the credit guarantee agreement.

B. C established a non-party company on February 28, 2012, according to the name of B registered as an individual entrepreneur, and the location of the head office is “Irified D”, “In-house directors,” and “E and auditor, who are children of C,” respectively.

However, the non-party company was issued a ruling to commence the auction on January 3, 2013 and became unable to conduct normal financial transactions and business activities on April 18, 2013, such as being subject to seizure disposition from the Sungsung Tax Office.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant Company was established on November 21, 201, and the location of its head office is the same with the Nonparty Company (the location of the head office is changed to the G in terms of harmony on May 4, 2013), the inside director is the same as E and the auditor, and the NAP is the same as E and the auditor are the same as F. 25 years, and is advertised as a business specialized in the FRP, the same type of business as the Nonparty Company. In fact, the number of Nonparty Company and its customers overlap substantially.

As above, the non-party company and the defendant company are primarily identical to the actual managers (the representative of the defendant company, E is merely the representative in the name of the defendant company), inside directors, auditors, business purposes, customers, etc., and the non-party company uses the defendant company for the purpose of evading obligations as it faces difficulties in management. Thus, the plaintiff, the creditor of the non-party company, as well as the defendant company, may claim the performance

2. Determination

A. An enterprise with a view to evading obligations by an existing company of the legal doctrine of abuse of corporate personality.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가단62017

-서울북부지방법원 2020.06.18 2018가단104853

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.05.18 2017가합100986

-서울고등법원 2015.01.22 2014나2019903

-청주지방법원충주지원 2015.09.02 2015가단20783