beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 5, 2015 to April 6, 2016.
Reasons
Ⅰ. Determination as to the "party" of the contract of this case
1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the party who entered into the instant app Development Contract with the Plaintiff and the instant Handphone (hereinafter “the Defendant”) is not the Defendant’s individual but the Defendant’s corporate entity as C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and thus, it cannot claim against the individual.
2. In a case where the legal principles on the dissolution of a corporate entity or the abuse of a corporate entity are in the external form of a corporation, but in substance, it is merely a private enterprise of another person behind the corporate entity, or it is used without permission in order to avoid the application of laws against the person behind the corporate entity, the denial of a person behind the corporate entity's responsibility by asserting that even if the act of the company is an externally used as a means to avoid the application of laws against the person behind the corporate entity shall be deemed as a separate character and thus, it shall not be permitted against justice and equity as an abuse of the corporate entity that violates the principle of trust and good faith, and therefore, the company and the person behind the corporate entity shall be held liable for the act of the company against the person behind the corporate entity.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da21604 delivered on January 19, 2001). If the company appears to be only an individual enterprise of another person behind the corporate personality, as a matter of principle, the company’s legal act or fact-finding act at the time of the juristic act or fact-finding act in question is deemed to be in combination to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish between the company and its hinterland, whether the decision-making procedure provided for in the Act or the articles of incorporation was not followed, such as whether the company did not hold a general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors, the degree of the company’s capital failure, the scale of the company’s business and the number of employees, etc., shall be deemed to be “marization” to the extent that
In addition, the above.