1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From March 31, 2003 to June 2, 2003, the Plaintiff engaging in the business of manufacturing raw materials used in the production of the fruit paper supplied C with the production source of the fruit paper with the trade name of “B”, and C did not pay KRW 75,424,110 out of the price of the production source.

B. On June 9, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Changwon District Court ordering C to pay for the purchase price of goods as the Jinwon District Court Branch Decision 2006Kadan8319, and the above court rendered a judgment ordering C to pay the Plaintiff KRW 75,424,110, and delay damages therefor.

The above ruling of the same year

7.6. Finality was established.

C. C owned a factory site of 2800 square meters and its ground factory site (hereinafter “instant factory”). However, on June 24, 2003, an auction was commenced around June 24, 2003, and the Defendant was awarded a successful bid on the instant factory around July 2005.

The defendant, having the factory of this case as its head office, is mainly engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling the fruit paper, and E, the wife of C, from around 208 to 2014, was registered as the representative director.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant has the form of a legal entity, but its substance is a company run by an individual, and therefore it is not necessary to protect the legal entity. Therefore, the defendant shall also bear the obligation to be borne by C in accordance with the legal principle of denial of legal personality.

Since the defendant's business was acquired by transfer while deceiving C's trade name, it is obligated to repay C's obligations pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act.

B. As seen earlier, “B” operated by 1C and the Defendant’s trade name are similar, and the location and main business are the same, and the facts that E was the Defendant’s representative director are the wife of “B” are the same.

(b).