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 of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the decision of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the fourth decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added to the “4. conclusion” of the second sentence above.

C. The Plaintiff’s additional assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant is merely a “one-person company” of the representative director C, and thus, it cannot be applied to the conclusion that C entered into the instant sales contract under the Defendant’s name. However, according to the evidence No. 14, it is recognized that the Defendant’s shareholder was more than three (58.33% of the total shares) other than C (41.67%) and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant company is “one-person company” of C, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion.

In addition, in light of the following: (a) in a single-person company, a representative individual and a company are clearly separate personality, and the interests of the representative individual and the company at the corporate level conflict with each other; (b) so, the legal principles on abuse of power of representation can be applied; (c) in a case where a shareholder of a single-person company uses the company’s funds for the intent of unlawful acquisition, embezzlement is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5772, Jun. 1, 2007); and (d) in a case where a property damage occurs to a stock company due to a shareholder of a single-person company, the crime of breach of trust is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7585, Jun. 16, 2006).

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. In addition, when the plaintiff comes to the trial, it is reasonable for C to prepare to the plaintiff a complete payment certificate in the name of the defendant. 30 million won against C.