1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit following the filing of the appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as stated in paragraph (1).

2. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the parties’ assertion are the same as the part concerning the Plaintiff and the Defendant in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is also the same as the part concerning the Plaintiff and the Defendant

3. Determination

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is as follows: “The result of each fact-finding with respect to the chief director of the National Pension Service and the chief director of the Seocho Tax Office of the first instance court’s order to submit tax information to the chief of the National Pension Service, the result of fact-finding with respect to the National Health Insurance Corporation of the first instance court’s order”; “Seoul Seocho-gu CS” in the same 8 part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the part 3-B(1) of the judgment of the first instance except where “Seoul Seocho-gu T” is deemed to be “Seoul Seocho-gu T”, and thus, it

B. 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 obligations, the establishment of the new company has abused its corporate system in order to achieve illegal objectives, such as evading its obligations, and thus, asserting that two existing companies have a separate corporate personality cannot be permitted in light of the principle of trust and good faith for the creditors of the existing company. The creditors of the existing company may demand the performance of obligations against either of the two companies.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da66892 Decided November 12, 2004). In this context, whether an existing company has been used as a corporate personality of another company with the intent to evade its obligations, is a reasonable price for the assets transferred from an existing company to another company, if the existing company discontinues its business, its management status or asset status at the time of the closure of its business, its existence and degree of assets useful to another company, and the assets transferred from the existing company to the other company.