1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 157,278,575 and the interest rate thereon from November 30, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B

A. At the request of Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), the Plaintiff supplied steel products required for the process of manufacturing automobile parts by October 2018, but the Defendant Company did not pay the price for the goods equivalent to KRW 157,278,575.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 157,278,575 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from November 30, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

(b) Judgment by service based on which recognition is applicable (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C, D, and E

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has a claim against the Defendant Company for the purchase price of goods as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition. The Defendant Company, a single family member, establishes Defendant C, D, and E as a small-scale capital of KRW 1 million and borrows the form of the legal entity in appearance, and in substance, it is nothing more than the said Defendants’ personal business entity.

Therefore, since the legal personality of the defendant company should be denied, the defendants, who are behind the defendant company, are jointly and severally liable to pay the price for the goods specified in Paragraph 1 of this Article

B. Where the judgment 1 company has the external form of a juristic person, but it merely takes the form of a juristic person, and in substance, it is merely an individual enterprise of a person behind the corporate personality, or it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of laws against the person behind the corporate personality, the denial of the responsibility of the person behind the corporate entity by asserting that even if the act of the company is an act of the company, it shall be attributed only to the company on the ground that the person behind the corporate personality is separate, is an abuse of the corporate personality in violation of the principle of trust and good faith.