1. Defendant A paid 169,676,760 won to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 22, 2015 to January 13, 2016.

The Plaintiff indicated the claim for determination as to the claim against Defendant A supplied refined oil to Defendant A’s operation from July 2013 to April 21, 2015, and the unpaid amount of goods is KRW 169,676,760 as indicated in the attached Form.

Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 169,676,760 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed in the Civil Act from April 22, 2015 to January 13, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum prescribed in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Service by Public Notice) of the applicable provisions of the Act on the Civil Procedure (amended by Act No. 208(3) provides that the Plaintiff’s claim as to the claim against Defendant Incorporated Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company established by Defendant A for the purpose of evading his/her obligation related to C, and thus, Defendant A is jointly and severally liable to pay the price

Since the Defendant Company continues to use the same business mark after acquiring the business from Defendant A at the time of its incorporation, it is a transferee of business who belongs to its trade name, and is jointly and severally liable to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act.

Judgment

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 with respect to the assertion of abuse of corporate personality, the establishment of the new company has abused the corporate system in order to achieve illegal purpose, such as evading obligations of the existing company. Therefore, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate corporate personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible under the principle

As such, a creditor of an existing company may demand the performance of an obligation against either of the above two companies.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 12 delivered on November 12, 2004