1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 15, 199 and September 19, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with each C (name of business: D) on the principal and interest of a loan from a bank. The Plaintiff, a husband of C, guaranteed a joint and several liability for indemnity that C shall bear to the Plaintiff according to the above credit guarantee agreement.

B. C received loans from the F Bank as security, and KRW 50 million from the G Bank. On January 10, 2002, the Plaintiff lost the benefit of each of the above loans due to a credit guarantee accident, and on March 28, 2002, the Plaintiff subrogated to the F Bank for KRW 18,412,60 on June 10, 202, with the principal and interest of the above credit guarantee amount, KRW 38,920,438 on March 28, 2002, and KRW 18,412,660 on behalf of the G Bank.

C. On July 26, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against E with the Seoul District Court Decision 2002Da205701, and was sentenced to a judgment in favor of the entire court ordering the payment of KRW 57,806,418 on July 10, 2003, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 31, 2003.

On May 2, 2007, the Defendant, a stock company for manufacturing business, wholesale and retail business, and medical device development and import business, was established. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Defendant was employed as the Defendant’s representative director on July 27, 2010 from July 27, 201 to May 1, 201 and September 7, 2012 to July 27, 2016.

E is a partner of E.

E. On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against E for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the foregoing final and conclusive judgment against Incheon District Court Decision 2013Da207483, and was sentenced to a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 31, 2013, which ordered the payment of KRW 59,673,583, and the delay damages thereof. The said judgment became final and conclusive on June 20, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6

2. If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical with the existing company with a view to evading its obligations, the establishment of the new company is intended to achieve the unlawful purpose of evading its obligations.