1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff provided credit guarantee between June 26, 2006 and October 8, 2009 when receiving a business loan from a financial institution. When a credit guarantee accident occurred on November 7, 2009 due to B’s delinquency in paying the above principal and interest of loan, the Plaintiff paid by subrogation to the financial institution around May 6, 2010 and held a claim for reimbursement of approximately KRW 570 million against B.

(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Kahap57010 decided August 12, 2010).(b)

B, on December 9, 199, a corporation incorporated as C with the head office as the main business and the head office as C was controlled by D, the representative director. On November 7, 2009, after a credit guarantee accident occurred, the report was filed with the head office having jurisdiction over the head office on June 30, 2010, and was dissolved on December 2, 2013 pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act.

C. On December 18, 2009, the Defendant is a corporation incorporated with its principal office C in Chungcheong City with its main business purpose as its annual company, code company, and re-manufacturing/processing business, and the representative director is E at the time of its establishment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 12 (each number includes a number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant is a company established by D for the evasion of debt B, and thus, the defendant is responsible for the repayment of debt B to the plaintiff who is the creditor of B.

B. If an existing company established a new company with substantially identical form and content in order to evade debts, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of company system in order to achieve unlawful purposes, such as evasion of debts of the existing company.

In such a case, the assertion that two existing companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible under the principle of good faith, so the creditors of the existing company shall also be one of the two companies.