1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of the following additional determination as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Since the defendant company and C are identical to the defendant company that claims that the plaintiff emphasizes as the grounds for appeal, the defendant company is obligated to pay 13,000,000 won for the unpaid goods to the plaintiff and delay damages therefor.

B. If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company for the purpose of evading its obligations, the establishment of the new company is abused the company system for the purpose of evading its obligations. Thus, the assertion that two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible in light of the principle of trust and good faith, and the creditors of the existing company may demand the performance of obligations against either of the two companies.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da66892 Decided November 12, 2004). Whether an existing company has been used as a corporate personality of another company with the intent to evade its obligations should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the management status or asset status at the time of closure of the existing company, the existence and degree of assets used by the existing company to another company, the assets transferred from an existing company to an existing company, and whether reasonable consideration has been paid in cases where the existing company has assets transferred to another company.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94472 Decided May 13, 201, etc.). According to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 and witness E’s testimony, the following facts are recognized.

① Around July 2014, the Defendant Company was established for the same type of business as C.

② The Defendant Company used the Internet domain name used by C at the beginning of its establishment and introduced C as its telegraphic transfer.