beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 9,1760,00,000 (hereinafter “instant price for goods, etc.”) out of the total amount of 19,8550,000 won for goods supplied from October 23, 2013 to May 30, 2014, and from December 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, to Company B (hereinafter “B”).
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application against B for a payment order claiming the payment of the instant goods price, etc. with the court No. 2016 tea699, and on September 20, 2016, the payment order became final and conclusive by the above court that “B would pay B the instant goods price, etc. and its delay damages to the Plaintiff.”
C. The defendant is the only internal director of B, who is the representative.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading
2. Determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s provision of the real estate owned by the Defendant as collateral is so mixed that it is difficult to distinguish between the Defendant and B’s property and business. Although B is merely the Defendant’s personal enterprise consisting of one inside director and one employee, the Defendant abused the corporate personality of B, thereby evading the Defendant’s liability to pay the price of the instant goods
In such a case, the plaintiff may claim the payment of the price of the goods of this case against the defendant who is behind the hinterland B. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the price of the goods of this case and the compensation for delay.
B. According to the evidence No. 6 of the judgment of the court below, at the time when the defendant obtained a loan from the bank of Korea on November 16, 2006, the defendant set up the right to collateral security with the creditor bank, the maximum debt amount of KRW 96 million on the apartment owned by the bank of Korea.
However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, B can be acknowledged that a corporation established on September 7, 2005, which had five employees at the time of the Plaintiff’s supply of the goods to B, and that the Plaintiff runs the electrical construction business, etc., and the sum of the goods prices from B.