logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.03.14 2016가단19800
물품대금
Text

1. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 78,713,60 and the interest rate thereon from September 8, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”)

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the application;

(However, the creditor is considered as the "Plaintiff", and the debtor is considered as the "defendant".

Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by service by public notice)

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant Company has a claim for the price of goods as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition against the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company merely borrowed the form of a corporation in appearance, and is virtually the representative director and the shareholder of the Defendant B’s personal business.

Therefore, since the corporate personality of the defendant company should be denied, the defendant B, who is the hinterland, is jointly and severally liable to pay the price for the goods specified in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the

B. In a case where the judgment company has the external form of a juristic person but merely takes the form of a juristic person, and in substance, it is merely an individual enterprise of a person behind the corporate body, or it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of the laws against the person behind the corporate body, the denial of the responsibility of the person behind the corporate body 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 corporate body is a separate character, and thus, it shall not be permitted against the justice and equity as an abuse of the corporate body in violation of the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, the company as well as the person behind the corporate body shall be held liable for the corporate act

If the company seems to be only an individual company of the person behind the corporate personality, in principle, it is difficult to distinguish between the company and the person behind the corporate body from its property, based on the time when the legal act or factual act in question is performed.

arrow