beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff’s assertion in this case by the court of first instance to the following two paragraphs. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant is merely a private company B in substance and is used as a means to avoid the application of the law to B. Thus, the plaintiff may claim the performance of the price for the goods to the defendant.
B. Where the judgment company merely takes the form of a juristic person and actually takes the form of a juristic person, and it is used as a means to avoid the application of the laws against the person behind the juristic person or to avoid the application of the laws against the person behind the juristic person, the denial of the responsibility of the person behind the juristic person by asserting that even if the act of the company is an act of the company, it shall belong only to the company on the ground that the person behind the company is a separate person, and thus, it shall not be permitted against the justice and equity as an abuse of the juristic person in violation of the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, the company as well as the person behind the juristic person shall be held liable for the act of the company.
However, even if an individual, while running a business without establishing a company, and such an individual established a company with the same business purpose, physical facilities, human resources, etc., it cannot be said that the company is merely a private enterprise of another person behind the corporate entity or without permission, unless it is in a dominant position to use the newly established company in his/her own mind. Thus, it cannot be said that the company has used the corporate form as a means to avoid legal responsibility to the person behind the corporate