1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On May 23, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with C at the time when the representative C of B General Commercial Company was granted a loan of KRW 150 million from the National Bank, and D, the husband of C, guaranteed C’s liability for indemnity.

On February 21, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the said company when E (hereinafter “E”) borrowed KRW 660 million from a corporate bank.

B Around February 2006, the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest of the loan to a national bank. Around February 19, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court 2006Da185782 filed a lawsuit against D et al. for claiming the amount of reimbursement and received a favorable judgment (final judgment) on September 27, 2006.

Edo. Around September 2005, the Plaintiff began to pay the above loans, and on December 26, 2005, the Plaintiff repaid the above principal and interest of loans to a corporate bank, and thereafter, the Seoul Central District Court 2008Kadan270592 filed a lawsuit against E, etc. for claiming indemnity amount and received a favorable judgment (final judgment) on November 28, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, assertion of the purport of the entire argument and determination of the plaintiff's assertion B comprehensive company, E and the actual operator of the defendant company are all D, and the defendant company is established to evade the debt of B and E, and the defendant company is obligated to pay all the debt owed by B and E in accordance with the so-called "legal principle of denial of corporate personality".

Judgment

If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company in order to evade debts, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading debts of the existing company. In such a case, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible in light of the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, the creditors of the existing company also have against one of the above two companies.