2017Na12966 Receiving money

A Stock Company

Attorney Kim Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

B A.

Attorney Kim Young-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel Park Jong-soo

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Gahap5709 Decided July 13, 2017

May 4, 2018

June 29, 2018

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 989,731,965 won and 643,259,110 won with 15% interest per annum on November 15, 2016 until the date of full payment.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) delayed the performance of obligations arising from the said credit transaction, as listed below, among 16 new transactions with the Obank as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On November 27, 2012, ○○ Bank transferred a claim arising from the said credit transaction with Japan PPP to PPP, and PPP transferred the said claim to a limited liability company specialized in asset-backed securitization with the consent of ○○ Bank on December 21, 2012. On November 6, 2015, the limited liability company specialized in asset-backed securitization transferred the said claim to the Plaintiff on December 15, 2015.

C. As of February 11, 2016, the remaining amount of C’s loan due to the said 16th credit transaction was KRW 643,259,110, and the remaining interest or delay damages were KRW 346,472,855.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received a judgment against C on February 9, 2017, stating that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 989,731,965 won and 643,259,110 won with interest rate of 15% per annum from November 15, 2016 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is (hereinafter “the obligation of acquisition of the instant loan”).

E. On the other hand, C was established on December 28, 1999 and established in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon *** the manufacturing of sanitary and cremation sites with its head office located in the Daejeon ** on December 1, 2015, and the Defendant was established on August 12, 201, in Seo-gu, Seo-dong, Daejeon ***** ○○○○○○○ living of the stock company, which is the same address as C, and is engaged in the manufacturing of sanitary and cremation sites (the change of the Defendant on November 2, 2012).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 7, 22 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since C establishes a defendant, the form and content of which are substantially the same for the purpose of evading his/her obligation, it is not permissible that the defendant asserts a legal entity separate from C and denies his/her non-performance liability against C with the plaintiff is against the good faith principle or an abuse of legal personality. Accordingly, the plaintiff, as a creditor of C, as well as C, may seek the performance of the non-performance of the debt of this case against the defendant.

2) Even if the Defendant’s abuse of corporate personality is not recognized, there was a real transfer of business between C and the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to perform the instant transfer of business succeeded from C as a transferee of business under the Commercial Act.

B. The defendant's argument

The defendant was not a company established for the purpose of evading C's obligations, but did not take over C's business.

3. Determination

(a) Relevant legal principles;

If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form of the existing company in order to evade debts, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the company system for the sake of the unlawful purpose of evading debts of the existing company. In such a case, claiming that the above 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. Therefore, a creditor of the existing company may also claim the performance of debts against any of the above two companies. Here, whether to establish a new company with the intent to evade debts of the existing company should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as management conditions or financial status of the existing company at the time of the closure of the existing company, the time of the establishment of the new company, the existence and degree of assets useful for the new company as the new company, the existence of assets used for the new company as the new company, the payment of reasonable prices if there are assets transferred from the existing company to the new company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da9472, May 13, 2011

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as a de facto identical company with C, has established only a form of carrying out a new company for the purpose of evading C’s obligations, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the health stand, the evidence mentioned above, and the evidence described in Gap’s 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 33, and Eul’s 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12, and the overall purport of testimony and arguments of the witness Lee ○○○○○○, a witness at the trial, and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff, as a creditor of C, has a legal personality separate from C, cannot be permitted under the principle of trust and good faith. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as a creditor of C, as well as the Defendant, may claim the performance of the obligation of acquiring the instant obligation

① 피고의 대표이사 변○○은 C의 대표이사였던 변■■의 동생, 김○○은 변■■ 의 처, 김■■은 김○○의 동생으로서 서로 친인척 관계이고, 위 김■■은 김○○의 부 탁을 받고 2011. 6. 21. 농협은행 예금계좌(계좌번호 301-0084-****-**)를 개설하였는 데, 위 예금계좌는 C, 변■■, 김○○이 수시로 돈을 입금하거나 인출하면서 피고를 설 립하기 전에는 C의 운영에 사용되다가 피고가 설립된 후에는 피고의 운영에 사용되었

② On July 5, 2011, C was suspended from check account transactions on July 7, 201 due to the occurrence of dishonor, and on August 12, 2011, the Defendant was established on August 12, 201.

③ 피고와 C는 본점 소재지와 영업 목적이 동일하고, 피고를 설립할 당시의 임원 진과 주주 등은 변■■의 부하직원(주주 겸 대표이사 박○○, 주주 겸 사내이사 최○ ○)이었으며, 현재의 임원진과 주주 등도 변■■의 친인척(주주 겸 대표이사 변○○ , 주주 김■■)이거나 그의 부하직원( 사내이사 박○○, 주주 이■■)이고 , 변○○은 C에 서 근무하기도 하였다.

④ 변○○이 법인등기부상 2012. 11. 2. 취임한 이후 현재까지 피고의 대표이사로 등재되어 있기는 하나, 한편 피고의 인터넷 홈페이지에는 C에서 피고로 상호가 변경되 었다고 소개되어있는데다가, 피고 주소지를 관할하는 지방자치단체(대전광역시 서구 ) 소식지 등에는 2015. 7.경까지도 피고의 대표자가 C의 대표이사였던 변■■으로 기재 되어 있는 점, 2010. 1. 7.부터 C의 감사였던 김○○이 피고가 설립될 무렵부터 피고의 직원으로 근무하다가 현재는 직원채용업무를 담당하고 있는 점, 변■■은 피고의 직원 이었던 이○○에게 퇴직금을 지급하기도 하였고, 피고의 직원들은 변■■을 '사장님' 으 로 호칭하여 온 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, C의 대표이사였던 변■■ 이 여전히 피고의 사 업을 실질적으로 운영하여 왔다고 볼 여지가 충분하다 .

⑤ C는 2011. 8. 19. 피고와 C의 주요자산으로 보이는 '대전 서구 오동 *** 공장 용지 1,637㎡ , 같은 동 ## # 창고용지 2,493와 그 지상 건물, 기계기구 일체' 를 임차 보증금 10,000,000원, 월 임차료 1,500,000원에 임대하는 내용의 임대차계약을 체결하 였는데, 당시 임대차계약서( 갑 제24호증)에는 피고가 C의 직원 뿐만 아니라 채권 · 채 무까지도 승계하기로 하였고( 제8, 9조), 한편 피고가 C에게 위 임차보증금과 임차료를 지급하였다는 객관적인 자료는 제출되지 아니하였다. 또한 위 임대차계약이후 피고는 상당수 C의 근로자들을 승계하였고, C가 사용하던 기계기구로 C가 생산하던 것과 동 일한 화장지 등 다수의 제품을 그대로 생산하였으며, C 명의로 등록된 디자인과 특허 또는 실용신안 등록이 이루어진 롤 휴지 절단장치, 비데용 위생 휴지, 화장지 제조장치 등도 피고의 영업을 위하여 그대로 사용하였다.

1⑥ 피고는 C 소유의 부동산과 기계기구 등에 관한 대전지방법원 2011타경25299호 부동산 임의경매절차에서 2012. 11. 15. 위 부동산과 기계기구 등을 1,131,000,000원에 낙찰받아 그 대금을 완납함으로써 소유권을 취득하였으나, 위 낙찰대금 중 입찰보증금 83,329,900원은 앞서 본 김■■(계좌번호 301-0084-****-**) 의 계좌에서 인출되었고, 나머지 잔대금은 위 경매로 인한 소유권 취득일에 위 부동산에 근저당권을 설정해주고 농협은행으로부터 대출받은 돈으로 충당한 점에 비추어 실제로 피고 측의 자산으로 위 경매대금이 지급되었다고 보기는 어렵다.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 989,731,965 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 15, 2016 to the date of full payment (as long as the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s primary assertion, it shall not be separately determined on the conjunctive assertion seeking the same amount of acquisition).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted with due reasons, and since the judgment of the court of first instance which has reached this conclusion is unfair, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted and the defendant shall be revoked and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the above amount, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Park Byung-il (Presiding Judge)

Kim Jin-hwan

Madonology