beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in KRW 138,297,530 of the construction cost claim against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”). Since C, the representative director, owned the entire shares and operated by the Defendant as an individual company, the Defendant abused its legal personality to evade the Defendant’s obligations against the Plaintiff, the Defendant also has the obligation to pay the said construction cost to the Plaintiff.
2. If the judgment company appears to be merely an individual enterprise of a person behind the corporate personality, in principle, it should be punished to the extent that the company’s name is only and is not merely an individual business, in light of the law or the articles of incorporation, such as whether the company and the person behind the business are mixed enough to distinguish between the company and the business, whether the decision-making procedure was not followed by the law or the articles of incorporation, such as whether the company did not hold a general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors, the degree of the company’s capital failure, the size of business and the number of employees, etc.
In addition, even if it does not reach the above level of corporateization, a person behind the hinterland of the company may be liable for the acts of the company as well as the company in case of abuse of corporate personality, but in this case, at the time of abuse such as evasion of debts, a person behind the hinterland of the company is in a dominant position where the company can use the company in his own mind, and it is required to abuse the corporation system by taking advantage of such a position. As such, whether the person behind the hinterland abused the corporation system should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the degree of dissolution of corporate personality as seen earlier and the perception or trust of the other party.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90982 Decided September 11, 2008, etc.). A.