1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around December 24, 2010 when establishing and operating A, the Plaintiff was granted a loan from the Nonghyup under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee, and on August 18, 201, the Plaintiff was deprived of the benefit of time due to defective disposal, etc., on or around December 12, 2011, and the Plaintiff repaid the loan by subrogation to the Nonghyup, the Plaintiff repaid the loan on or around December 12, 201, and partially recovered the claim from B.

B. On September 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B with the Daegu District Court No. 2012Ga209312, and filed a lawsuit for the claim of indemnity, and on September 21, 2012, the said court rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 48,751,233 won and 48,751,215 won among them, interest rateing to 15% per annum from December 12, 2011 to September 5, 2012, and interest rateing to 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 9, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion B is to establish the defendant company in order to evade his/her own debt and to substantially operate the defendant company on the ground of Eul as the representative director. While the defendant company has the form of a juristic person, it is actually used as a means to avoid the application of the law, such as compulsory execution against the above B, as it is actually used as a private enterprise in the hinterland B, and thus, the defendant company is liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of indemnity against the plaintiff in accordance with the final judgment of this case and its delay damages

B. The summary of the defendant's assertion is directly invested in E, establishes the defendant company, and continues to provide funds to the present time, and the defendant company is not an employee of the defendant company, and the defendant company is not an employee of the defendant company, and it is not an employee of

Therefore, it is not reasonable to deny the corporate personality of the defendant company.

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine has the form of a legal entity in external form, but is a legal entity.