logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.04.10 2014가합10916
물품대금
Text

1. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 196,146,445 and the interest rate thereon from September 23, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. From August 2013 to March 2014, the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 527,952,707 to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). However, the Defendant Co., Ltd. only paid KRW 331,806,261 out of the price of the said goods and deducted KRW 331,806,446,707 from KRW 196,146,452,707 to KRW 331,806,446 if the remainder of the goods is deducted from KRW 196,806,261. The Plaintiff’s claim amount is KRW 196,146,445. As such, the legitimacy of the claim is determined based on this.

(2) No payment has been made.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek payment of 196,146,445 won and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

(b) Judgment made based on the recommendation of confession during the past time (Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an individual company established by Defendant B to avoid the burden of debt. In fact, Defendant B is an individual company.

Therefore, Defendant B, jointly and severally with the Defendant Company, should pay 196,146,445 won for the unpaid goods and delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff.

B. In a case where the board company has the external form of a juristic person but merely takes the form of a juristic person, and in substance, it is merely a private enterprise of another person behind the corporate personality, or it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of the laws against the person behind the corporate personality, it is an abuse of the corporate personality in violation of the principle of good faith to deny the responsibility of the person behind the corporate entity by asserting that even if the act of the company is an act of the company, the legal effect of the act is attributed only to the company on the ground that the person behind the corporate personality is separate.

arrow