The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant shall bear the costs of appeal.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court invoked the Supreme Court Decision 201Da13690 Decided April 28, 2016, on the premise that the creditors of the existing company may claim the performance of obligations of the newly established company because the existing company abused the corporate system in order to achieve the unlawful purpose, such as evading obligations of the existing company where the form of the existing company was established with the intent to evade debts, and determined that the existing company’s business purpose is identical to that of the existing company C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and the new company’s new company’s acquisition of more than half of the shares issued by the Defendant company including the representative F and pro rata as promoters at the time of the establishment of the new company, by taking into account the fact that the former company’s principal office is located in the body of the Defendant company’s headquarters, and that the new company’s announcement of the plan constitutes an executive officer and employee of the new company’s new company, and that the new company’s announcement of the plan constitutes the same type as the former company’s new company’s new company’s new company’s new business for a specific period of time.

B. After the Defendant Company was established on February 2016, the lower court found that C, on May 2016, came to fall into excess of the obligation due to default on loans, and that C was closed on November 2016, and C had already aggravated to the extent that it is impossible to recover its obligation at the time of the preparation for the establishment of the Defendant Company.