The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

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

1. The defendant's appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and evidence Nos. 8 and 9 submitted by this court to the court of first instance as evidence submitted in the court of first instance (which include a number of numbers).

hereinafter the same shall apply) The fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is justifiable even if each of the entries is added.

[2] The Defendant asserts that, on the premise that the existence of the purpose of evading obligations for the purpose of applying the legal principles on the abuse of corporate personality should be determined at the time of the establishment of the Defendant Company, C did not have the purpose of evading obligations against the Plaintiff at the time of the establishment of the Defendant Company, and that C could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that there is no personal and material identity between C and the Defendant Company, which was operated by the Defendant Company.

However, the legal principles of abuse of legal personality apply not only to the case where a company newly establishes another company whose substantial identity is recognized as the intention to evade debts, but also to the case where a company has already been established and the form and content of which are substantially identical after its establishment is intended to evade debts, but also to the case where it is intended to use the company with the intent to evade debts after its establishment, such as the representative of the defendant company, and the composition and scale of human resources, etc. of the defendant company, it is difficult to deny the identity with the previous office solely on the ground that the employees of the defendant company were additionally employed after its establishment;

In light of the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the evidence alone is insufficient to reverse the fact that C established the previous office, the form and content of the business, and conducted the business using the same type for the purpose of evading the Plaintiff’s obligations, and there is no other counter-proof.

The defendant's assertion is accepted.