beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 21, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co., Ltd.”) on February 26, 2008/ May 2, 2008, and the representative director E, etc. of the non-party Co., Ltd. jointly and severally guaranteed the non-party Co., Ltd’s obligation to enter into the credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff.
B. On December 3, 2008, the suspension of current account transactions and the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident under the above credit guarantee agreement. Accordingly, on March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 397,691,298 in total.
C. On May 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party company, the representative director E, etc. for the claim for reimbursement, etc. under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gahap44995, and rendered a favorable judgment that “the non-party company, E, etc. shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 401,271,418 won and 397,691,298 won among them, with 15% per annum from March 31, 2009 to January 20, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. Although the representative E of the Plaintiff’s asserted non-party company is obligated to repay to the Plaintiff the amount of reimbursement equivalent to KRW 401,271,418, the Defendant Company established the Defendant Company to evade the above amount of reimbursement. Therefore, in accordance with the legal doctrine of abuse of legal personality or denial of legal personality, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money and delayed payment for the amount of money and delayed payment
B. In the event that an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in its form and content for the purpose of evading its obligations, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the company system in order to achieve the unlawful purpose of evading its obligations.
In this case, the above two cases are applicable to the creditors of the existing company.