beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
(1) The first instance judgment is justifiable even if the evidence submitted by the first instance court and the first instance court are examined without significantly different from the grounds alleged in the first instance court while filing an appeal by the Defendant, and all of the evidence presented in the second instance and the first instance court are examined. The second instance judgment of the first instance court is dismissed as follows.
“If a company appears to be only an individual company behind the corporate personality, as a matter of principle, the legal act or fact-finding act at the time of the issue is conducted. In light of the legal or decision-making procedures stipulated in the law or the articles of incorporation, such as whether the property and business of the person behind the corporate personality were mixed to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish them, whether the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors was not held, degree of the company’s capital failure, scale of business and the number of employees, etc., the company’s name and substance should be punished to the extent that the company is only its name and is not only private business (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90982, Sept. 11, 2008). The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is merely a corporation’s appearance but merely takes the form of a corporation, and it is insufficient to view it as merely a private individual company behind the corporate personality as a whole, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (i.e., evidence No. 1). 2014, the plaintiff and the defendant sought 2001.