(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.06.10 2014가단39536

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) 전주지방법원 2015.06.10 2014가단39536

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 2013, the Plaintiff, the cause of the claim, completed the construction work for the mobile facilities in B stores and the difficulty in steel scrap for a limited liability company B, but was not paid the construction cost due to the closure of the business around December 31, 2013 by B.

B is merely the defendant's personal company which is the only director and the sole director of the above company, and the defendant must pay the construction price.

B. In a case where a company has the external form of a juristic person but actually takes the form of a juristic person, and is used without permission as a means to avoid the application of the law to another company behind the corporate entity or to avoid the application of the law to the company behind the corporate entity, the denial of the liability of the company behind the corporate entity by asserting that even if the act of the company in question is an act of the company in question, the legal effect of the company is attributed only to the company in question on the ground that it is a separate personality, shall not be permitted in light of justice and equity as an abuse of the corporate entity in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and therefore, the company in question as well as the company in question shall be held liable for the act of the company in question.

However, if it appears that the pertinent company is merely a tool for a company behind the corporate entity, in principle, whether the two companies did not follow the decision-making procedure prescribed by the law or the articles of incorporation, such as whether the juristic act or factual act at the time when the said juristic act or factual act is in question is mixed enough to distinguish between the assets and the two companies, whether the decision-making procedure was not followed by the law or the articles of incorporation, such as not holding a general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors, the degree of the insolvency of the capital of the pertinent company, the scale of the business, and the number of employees, etc.,

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.11.21 2014나31084

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.06.07 2016가단27125

-의정부지방법원 2016.12.16 2016나6843

-수원지방법원 2016.02.17 2014가단538358

-서울동부지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가단39894