1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in design service business, etc. of building equipment, and the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant company”) is a company that engages in architectural design and supervision business.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Southern District Court seeking the payment of KRW 383,570,000 for the service cost, and the delay damages therefor, as it did not receive the service cost even after the service was completed upon receiving a request for construction of machinery and equipment and design services for mechanical and fire-fighting construction from “B” (hereinafter “B”). The Plaintiff won the case on July 16, 2013.

(2013Gahap862). (c)

On August 18, 2015, Defendant Company established the name of August 18, 2015 as “A”, and the fourth floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building, the domicile of the head office of “B,” as its head office’s domicile, and E, the representative director of B, is registered as the auditor

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant Company used a similar trade name “B” in which only “F” runs the same kind of business at the same location. A representative of “B” appears to have actually been operating the Defendant Company in the course of the Defendant Company’s audit. The Defendant Company entered into a design service contract with the Defendant Company’s name at around July 2015, immediately before the incorporation, which amounts to KRW 1,537,000,000. The Defendant Company, the representative director of the Defendant Company, who was operating prior to the establishment of the Defendant Company, was merely about KRW 10,00,000 annually, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant Company entered into the said large-scale contract with the Defendant Company, taking over the sales and performance of the Defendant Company B as it appears to have concluded the said contract. In full view of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant Company appears to have concluded the said contract upon acceptance of the sales and performance of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company is a company incorporated to evade its obligations, and is practically the same company.