1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that he supplied the storage batteries to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) from March 2009 to December 2010. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 44,800,050 out of the amount of the goods.

B Since the defendant was established as the same company in order to avoid debt, the defendant cannot assert a separate legal personality against the plaintiff in light of the principle of good faith.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4,800,050 won for the goods and damages for delay.

2. If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company for the purpose of evading its obligation, this constitutes abuse of the company system for the purpose of achieving the unlawful purpose of evading its obligation. In such a case, the assertion against the creditors of the existing company that the above two companies have a separate legal personality is not permissible in light of the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, the creditors of the existing company may demand the performance of obligation against one of the above two companies.

(2) In order to recognize that a new company was established with the intent to evade the obligations of the existing company, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the management status of the existing company or its asset status, the time of the establishment of the new company, the existence and degree of assets useful for the new company from the existing company to the new company, the existence of assets transferred from the existing company to the new company to the new company, and whether there was a reasonable price in the event of the assets transferred from the existing company to the new company.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da6466 Decided May 29, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33002 Decided September 9, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da77327 Decided January 14, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da55747 Decided November 12, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da24438 Decided August 21, 2008; etc. In such cases, some of the trade names (hereinafter referred to as “C”) with the Defendant and B (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s representative director”) are common and almost the same as the Defendant’s business objectives, and D’s representative director D.