1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the actual manager of the F, H established the Defendant for the purpose of evading the Plaintiff’s obligations, it abused the corporate system, the Defendant also has the responsibility to pay the Plaintiff the compensation for the closed death unpaid by F in accordance with the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality.

However, if an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company for the purpose of evading debts, the establishment of the new company is abused the company system for the purpose of evading debts of the existing company, so the assertion that two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible in light of the principle of trust and good faith, and the creditors of the existing company can claim the performance of debts against either of the two companies.

In addition, whether an existing company has been used for the purpose of evading its obligations should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as management status or asset status at the time of closure of the existing company, existence and degree of assets useful for another company in the existing company, and whether reasonable price has been paid in the case of assets transferred from the existing company to another company.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94472 Decided May 13, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da13690 Decided April 28, 2016, etc.). In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is a company in which the F and the Defendant actually controled by H, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 4-1 through 3 and No. 12.