The judgment below

The part of the case against Defendant C is reversed, and this part of the case is also the Seoul Eastern District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the part on Defendant B

A. In a case where a company has the external form of a legal entity but merely takes the form of a legal entity, and in substance, it is merely a private enterprise of another person behind the legal entity or it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of the laws against the person behind the legal entity, the denial of the responsibility of the person behind the legal entity by asserting that even if the act of the legal entity is an act of the legal entity, it shall be attributed only to the company on the ground that the person behind the legal entity is a separate character and thus, shall not be permitted against the justice and equity as an abuse of the legal entity that violates the principle of good faith. It shall be deemed that the person behind the legal entity as well as the person behind the legal entity is liable

In this context, if a company appears to be a private company of another person behind the corporate personality, in principle, it should be punished to the extent that the company's name is only the name and substance of its business, in light of the legal act or fact-finding process stipulated in the law or the articles of incorporation, such as whether the property and business of the person behind the corporate personality are mixed to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish between the company and the person behind the corporate entity, whether the decision-making procedure was not followed by the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors, the degree of the company's capital failure, the size

In addition, even if it does not reach the degree of corporateization, a person behind the hinterland of the company may not only abuse the corporate personality of the company, but also take the responsibility for the act of the company against the person behind the hinterland. In this case, at the time of the abusive act such as evasion of debt, a person behind the hinterland of the company is in his mind the company.