1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claim against the defendant B added by this court are all dismissed.

2.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) except where the plaintiff and the defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) added a decision on the additional selective claim against the defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) by this court; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) such reasoning is cited pursuant

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in this court

A. At the present time of Defendant B’s assertion, R and X’s representative director L entered into a joint agreement with the Plaintiff to newly construct and sell the instant building through the instant construction on July 1, 2013. On December 3, 2014, Defendant B established a joint agreement with the said content.

On the other hand, R, X and C established a private contract to establish Defendant B, a new corporation, and sold the instant real estate to Defendant B and agreed on the method of debt disposal by C.

As such, R&X et al. established Defendant B with the same company as C for the purpose of evading the remainder of C’s obligations, other than those necessary for the implementation of the project, such as the establishment of the rights and obligations relationship with Defendant B prior to the establishment.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 474,100,000, which the Plaintiff had against C, and damages for delay equivalent to the judgment amount.

B. If an existing company established a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company to evade debts, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading debts of the existing company. 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 in light of the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, the creditors of the existing company may demand the performance of obligations against either of the above two companies.