1. The Defendant is based on the Plaintiff’s 26,271,561 won and the ratio of 20% per annum from August 14, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff supplied the PC parts to E (E) located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which was operated by C (hereinafter “E”), from December 2, 2010 to July 31, 201, and currently, was not paid KRW 26,271,561 out of the price.

C On July 31, 2011, the C discontinued E for the purpose of evading tax claims and compulsory execution on the claims of the Plaintiff, etc., and established the Defendant Company by registering the F in which E was audited as its representative director (the change to G during the pleadings of this case) and by establishing the Defendant Company, and allowing the Defendant to use the tangible assets including the various facilities and metal type E as it is.

C was pronounced guilty on May 23, 2014 by Suwon District Court due to the facts constituting the crime of evading compulsory execution as above.

The Plaintiff was paid KRW 14 million from the Defendant Company until September 28, 2012.

Defendant Company established by C on the ground of nominal representative director and is operated by it, and pays regular pay for its denial to Defendant Company’s director.

In addition, Defendant Company uses its website as it is.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry in Gap 1 through 37, the purport of the whole pleadings

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. Therefore, 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 good faith.

As such, a creditor of an existing company may demand the performance of an obligation against either of the above two companies.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da44531 delivered on May 12, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 97Da21604 delivered on January 19, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6892 delivered on January 19, 200). C is subject to E by its intent for the purpose of evading obligations to the actual operator of E.