1. The defendant shall pay 102,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from February 7, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 2014, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was incorporated for the purpose of the distribution, processing, and distribution of agricultural products for the purpose of the business of entrepreneurial agricultural management, environmentally friendly agricultural development, and the business of supplying agricultural materials for the reduction of production costs, and the purpose of the business of distributing, processing, selling, etc. agricultural products, and the location of its head office is D 2, e.g., the head office of the non-party company

However, G resigned from the audit office of the non-party company on July 27, 2017.

On November 11, 2015, the Defendant Company was established for the purpose of distributing, processing, and selling agricultural products, and the location of its head office is Do si si si si si si si, and there was G representative director, outside director H as its executive

(However, H resigned from office on August 22, 2017 and I was appointed as an internal director on August 22, 2017).

On January 20, 2016, G, as an agent of the non-party company, who was an auditor and accounting employee of the non-party company, issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 12 billion at a sight on the date of payment, and delayed the payment of the said promissory note, the non-party company did not raise any objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution (No. 15 of the J deed 2016).

[Grounds for recognition] The written evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. If an existing company established a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the company for the purpose of evading debts, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the company system for the purpose of evading debts of the existing company. Therefore, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company cannot be permitted in light of the principle of trust and good faith.

As such, creditors of the existing company fall under any of the above two companies.