1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Underlying facts, the non-party company shall pay to the Plaintiff 329,968,438 won with 6% interest per annum from February 1, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the instant payment order, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, who runs wholesale and retail business, such as V and steel products, supplied hardware, etc. to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), but applied for a payment order against Nonparty Company on the ground that it was not paid KRW 329,968,483 for the supply price, and received the payment order as follows from Cheongju District Court Chungcheongnamju Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office (2013 tea293). The payment order was finalized on April 9, 2013.

B. On March 19, 2013, Nonparty Company reported the closure of business on or around March 19, 2013, and up to now, Nonparty Company did not perform the obligation to pay for the goods under the above payment order.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a company that has abused the company system for the purpose of evading the debt of the non-party company by E, which is the actual operator of the non-party company, and the defendant is obligated to perform the above goods price liability to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the time of establishment is before the closure of the non-party company's business, and since the form and content of the non-party company are different, it does not abuse the company system.

3. Determination

A. If an existing company of the relevant legal doctrine establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the company for the purpose of evading debts, the establishment of the new company is abused the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading debts of the existing company. Therefore, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company cannot be permitted in light of the principle of good faith.

Therefore, the creditors of the existing company are in one side of the above two companies.