logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.07.06 2016가합107798
대여금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

D (former E) is the representative of F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”), and Nonparty Co., Ltd. was a company that operates manufacturing and retailing business, such as cooking, natural representation, and braille bricks, with its place of business located in the land located in H in the Hanam-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

From July 5, 2010 to January 5, 2011, the Plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 270 million to Nonparty Company as 1.2% per annum. After that, on August 2015, the Plaintiff received an order to pay KRW 270 million per annum from Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015 tea 11027 on August 17, 2015 to the Plaintiff by applying for a payment order with respect to Nonparty Company. “Non-Party Company shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 270 million per annum from January 6, 2011 to September 14, 2015; and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.”

(hereinafter “instant debt”). On August 29, 2012, Nonparty Company discontinued its business around the date of bankruptcy.

On May 7, 2015, Defendant C, a wife of D, established Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on May 7, 2015, and operated manufacturing and selling businesses, such as Typ and tin, by November 22, 2016, with its place of business located on the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant company is a company incorporated with the intent to evade debts of the non-party company, and is in fact identical to the non-party company, and thus, it is liable for the non-party company's debt of this case in accordance with the legal principles of abuse of corporate personality. In addition, since the defendant company continues to conduct its business by taking over the physical facilities and human organization of the non-party company as it is and continues to use the non-party company's trade name, the non-party company

arrow