1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

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 of the plaintiff’s argument in the trial by the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that even if the party to the goods supply contract of this case is the non-party business team, the defendant and the non-party business team are practically the same company. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have a legal personality separate from the non-party business team, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the price of

B. If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company for the purpose of evading its obligations, the establishment of the new company has abused its corporate system in order to achieve illegal objectives, such as evading its obligations. Therefore, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible in light of the principle of good faith.

Therefore, the creditor of the existing company can claim the performance of the obligation against either of the above two companies, and such a legal principle applies to the case where a company uses another company with the same type and content as the company actually established for the purpose of evading the obligation.

In addition, whether a corporate personality of an existing company has been used with the intent to evade debts of the existing company should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as management status or asset status at the time of closure of the existing company, existence and degree of assets useful to another company in the existing company, and whether reasonable price has been paid in cases of assets transferred from the existing company to another company.

Supreme Court Decision 208.8.8.