beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 4, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied goods to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.; and (b) failed to receive payment of goods equivalent to KRW 172,465,128; and (c) filed a provisional attachment order (hereinafter “real estate of this case”) with respect to real estate in the attached Form owned by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”); and (d) filed an application for a payment order against the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on May 31, 201, by receiving a provisional attachment order (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2011Kahap 1179) and filed an application for a payment order against the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.
6. The decision was made on 17.17. (B) (Seoul District Court Decision 201.1.92.2) However, the DBD closed on June 30, 2012 and the voluntary auction procedure for the instant real estate was commenced, and the E Company’s ownership was transferred to E Company on March 28, 2013, and the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership was completed on October 30, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. In light of the Plaintiff’s argument D Co., Ltd. and the Defendant’s business establishment purpose, the Defendant’s representative director, and F Co., Ltd.’s representative director is G’s spouse, and the Defendant was established after the closure of D Co., Ltd. and purchased the instant real estate, which is a representative asset of D Co., Ltd., after the D Co., Ltd. closure of D Co., Ltd., the Defendant was incorporated for the purpose of evading the liabilities to the business partners, including the Plaintiff, etc., and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s liabilities to D Co., Ltd
B. 1) 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 obligation, the establishment of the new company has abused the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose, which is the deprivation of the existing company's obligation. Therefore, it is good faith to assert that the above two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company.