beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 84,538,908 as well as 20% per annum from June 2, 2011 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 1 as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant and the Defendant Company B, or in full view of the purport of the argument No. 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8, the Plaintiff’s credit account receivables 75,139,178 won, and the Plaintiff’s credit account receivables 9,39,730 won, which were supplied to the Defendant from July 18, 2009 to October 6, 2010, can be acknowledged. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 9,39,730 and delay damages.
2. The defendant's liability for the credit sales of the non-party company
A. If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company for the purpose of evading its obligations, the establishment of the new company has abused its corporate system in order to achieve illegal objectives, such as evading its obligations. Therefore, 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.
Therefore, a creditor of an existing company may demand the performance of an obligation against either of the above two companies, and denying liability on the ground that a new company established with the same form and content substantially is a separate legal entity from the existing company for the purpose of evading the obligation of the existing company is not permissible as it violates the good faith and trust, or it abuse the legal entity.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da66892 Decided November 12, 2004, etc.). B.
Judgment
The non-party company is a stock company established on October 18, 1994, and C has 40% of shares, D, and E as its shareholder, with 30% of shares, and as its executive officers, the inside director F, D, G, audit and inspection E is the location of its head office H, and on the other hand, the defendant is a stock company established on December 19, 2006, and as its shareholder C has 40% of shares, I, and J have 30% of shares.