(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.12.23 2015나5559 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2015.12.23 2015나5559

중장비사용료

Text

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.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff, a lessor of the foundation of fact-finding, leased the excavated machine to C, the representative director of which was the Defendant, is either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole, as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers)

2. The plaintiff's argument concerning the plaintiff's assertion argues that C is merely an individual company of the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above excavation cost to the plaintiff.

In a case where a company has the external form of a juristic person but is merely taking the form of a juristic person, and in substance, it is merely a private enterprise of a person behind the corporate personality, or it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of the laws against the person behind the corporate personality, the denial of the responsibility of the person behind the corporate entity by asserting that even if the act of the company is an act of the company, it shall be attributed only to the company on the ground that the person behind the corporate entity is a separate person, shall not be permitted against the principle of trust and good faith, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the abuse of the corporate personality violates the principle of trust and good faith and therefore, the company as well as the person behind the corporate

In this context, if a company appears to be only an individual company behind the corporate personality, in principle, it shall be based on the time when the juristic act or fact-finding act in question is performed. In light of whether the company and its behind person have not followed the decision-making procedures provided for in the law or the articles of incorporation, such as whether the property and business are mixed to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish between the company and its behind person, whether the company did not hold a general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors, the degree of the company's capital failure, the scale of business and the number of its employees, etc.,

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가단39894

-의정부지방법원 2016.12.16 2016나6843

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2020.08.18 2019가단12792

-수원지방법원 2019.06.18 2018나70479

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.07.10 2015가단2019