1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts that C (hereinafter "C") has a claim for the price of goods (the amount of KRW 329,968,438 and the amount of KRW 6% per annum from February 1, 2013 to the date of full payment, the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and KRW 20% per annum from the date of full payment, and KRW 20% per annum from the Cheongju District Court, and KRW 2013 tea 293) against C, which is established by abusing the corporate system to avoid debt, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above goods price to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant and C are entirely separate companies, and they did not abuse the company system.

2. Determination

(a) If an existing law firm establishes a new company substantially identical in the form of a company with a view to evading its obligations, this constitutes an abuse of the company system to achieve an unlawful purpose, such as evading its obligations.

In such a case, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible under the principle of good faith. Therefore, the creditors of the existing company may claim for the performance of obligations against either of the above two companies.

In this context, whether a new company is established with the intention to evade debts of the existing company should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including management status or asset status 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 useful for the new company to be a new company, and whether there is a reasonable price in the case of assets transferred from the existing company to the new company.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da24438 Decided August 21, 2008). B.

Judgment

In full view of Gap evidence 1-9 evidence, witness D's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument, the following facts can be recognized:

In other words, business registration added by the defendant on March 8, 2013.