1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 1998, B established a mutual intent company “E” jointly with “E” (hereinafter “existing company”) with “E” in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D, and operated a wholesale and retail business.

B. C on November 30, 1998, borrowed KRW 28,000,00 from the F Bank under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee, and at that time, B guaranteed the above loan obligation.

On April 14, 1999, when a credit guarantee accident occurred, the Plaintiff subrogated for 23,788,734 won to the F Bank on January 31, 200 with the implementation of the credit guarantee.

C. Existing companies closed around July 11, 2001. D.

On September 3, 2001, the defendant was established in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City G with the trade name "A".

E. At the time of the establishment of the Defendant, the type I, who is the representative director, and H, who is the mother of B and the wife of B, was appointed as the director.

F. The purpose of corporate register of the defendant is ① Topology inspection, ② topene retail, export and import business, ③ topene retail business, and export and import business, ④ topene Macene Macene Macene manufacturing, ⑤ topene Macene Macene processing and export business.

G. At present, H in the Defendant’s corporate register is registered as the Defendant’s representative director, K, who is the referring of B, as the auditor, and J as the in-house director.

H. The Plaintiff, as of February 26, 2018, has a total of KRW 94,560,068 claims for reimbursement against B.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the ground for appeal

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant is a private company established and operated by the existing company and the company substantially identical to that of the existing company B for the purpose of evading debts. According to the theory of corporate personality theory, the defendant's assertion of a separate corporate personality against the plaintiff who is the creditor of B cannot be permitted in light of the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the indemnity liability and its delay damages. 2) The defendant acquired the business of the existing company and transferred the existing company's trade name.