logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.06.26 2017나30325
배당이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows. Of the judgment of the first instance, the trade name was changed to “AI Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AI”) on February 22, 2016.”

hereinafter referred to as "AI"

2) The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ claim against AH is null and void on the ground that the Defendants’ claim against AH was made in collusion with AH and participated in employment in AI, and that the Defendants’ claim for distribution based on the tort was not unlawful since the Defendants abused their legal personality by transferring AH’s employees and business partners, etc. to AI for the purpose of evading obligations. 2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants’ claim for distribution based on the tort is null and void on the ground that the Defendants abused their legal personality, and that the Defendants’ claim for distribution based on the tort was made in collusion with AH and committed an illegal act. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted against AH on the ground that AH and AI abused their legal personality, separate from the Plaintiff’s claim against AI, the Defendants’ wage and retirement benefits against AH were null and void or the legal grounds for deeming that the Defendants’ claim for distribution was unlawful on the ground that the Defendants’ claim for distribution was not unlawful (the same as the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for distribution against AH and the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for distribution was not unlawful.

In addition, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 37 through 47 are not sufficient to deem that the Defendants conspired to abuse the legal personality of AH and AI, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow