(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2020.04.23 2019가단21890

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2020.04.23 2019가단21890

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff sales of market glass products to the non-applicant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the non-applicant company") on credit and did not receive KRW 160,557,574 as the price for the goods. The non-applicant company only has the form of a stock company in the form of a corporate, and actually has the form of a corporate body, and the defendant, the actual manager, as a director of the non-applicant company, is an individual company. Thus, the defendant, the person behind the non-applicant company, should be liable for the obligation to pay for the goods due to the transaction of the non-applicant company.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a company has the external form of a legal entity but merely takes the form of a legal entity, and in substance, it is merely a private enterprise of another person behind the legal entity or it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of the laws against the person behind the legal entity, the denial of the responsibility of the person behind the legal entity by asserting that even if the act of the legal entity is an act of the legal entity, it shall be attributed only to the company on the ground that the person behind the legal entity is a separate character and thus, shall not be permitted against the justice and equity as an abuse of the legal entity that violates the principle of good faith. It shall be deemed that the person behind the legal entity as well as the person behind the legal entity is liable

Here, if a company appears to be only a private company of another person behind the corporate personality, in principle, at the time when the juristic act or factual act in question is performed, whether the company and its hinterland do not follow the decision-making procedures provided for in the law or articles of incorporation, such as whether the property and business are mixed to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish between the company and its hinterland, and not holding a general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors, the degree of

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.07.10 2015가단2019

-대법원 2016.04.28 2015다13690

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.22 2017가단205690

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.10.29 2014가합22397

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2020.08.18 2019가단12792