The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The court of first instance and its determination are justifiable in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance as stated in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 submitted by the plaintiff in this court and the testimony of witness D in the court of first instance as well as the testimony of witness D in the court of first instance.

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to the assertion of denial of legal personality or abuse of legal personality is in the external form of a juristic person, but in substance, the Defendant is obliged to bear the obligation based on the instant confirmation document in the name of C. 2) In a case where the judgment company takes the external form of a juristic person, but it merely takes the form of a juristic person, but it is a person behind the legal personality, or where it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of laws against the person behind the legal personality, even though it is an act of a juristic person, the denial of the responsibility of the person behind the legal personality by asserting that the legal effect of the act of the company is attributed only to the company on the ground that the person behind the legal personality is separate, cannot be permitted against justice and equity as an abuse of legal personality in violation of the principle of trust and good faith. Accordingly, the company and the person behind the legal entity can be held liable for the act of the company.

However, if the company seems to be only an individual company of a person behind the corporate personality, in principle, the company's legal act or fact-finding act at issue is mixed with the company and its hinterland to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish between the property and the business, and the shareholders' meeting or the board of directors.