1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff supplied industrial freezing equipment. From January 201, to May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with the industrial freezing equipment totaling KRW 400,310,230.

B. In order to pay the price of the above goods, the non-party company issued multiple promissory notes to the Plaintiff; however, around May 17, 2016, the non-party company did not pay for the amount of KRW 400,310,230 of the above goods; and filed an application for rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap10250 and received the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures on October 11, 2016.

[Evidence: Evidence No. 1, 3, 4, and 5; All purports of oral argument]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) If an existing company claiming liability due to abuse of corporate personality established a new company practically identical to the form and content of the existing company in order to evade its obligations, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the existing company’s system in order to achieve the unlawful purpose of evading its obligations, and in such a case, claiming that the above two companies have separate corporate personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible under the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, the creditors of the existing company may also demand the repayment of obligations against either of the above two companies. Here, whether the existing company was incorporated with the intent to evade its obligations should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the management status or assets situation at the time of the closure of the existing company, the time of the establishment of the new company, the existence and degree of assets used as the new company, the existence of assets transferred from the existing company to the new company, and whether the reasonable price has been paid if the assets were transferred from the existing company to the new company (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da7327, Jan. 14, 2016).