Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

The plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff engaged in the manufacturing industry, such as electronic parts, with the trade name of “D” as the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion, sold goods, such as the lower source cable totaling KRW 41,219,00,000 to B.

The defendant is the representative director B.

In that sense, B is a company holding small amount of capital and has the external form of a legal entity, but in substance, it is limited to the defendant's personal enterprise used as a means to avoid applying the law to the defendant himself/herself. Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the price of the goods to the plaintiff under the legal doctrine of abuse of legal personality with

Judgment

In the case where a company has the external form of a juristic person but merely takes the form of a juristic person and in substance, it is merely a private enterprise of a person behind the juristic person, or it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of the laws against the person behind the juristic person, the act of the company is called the act of the person behind the juristic person.

Even in the case of a company and its hinterland, denying the responsibility of the person behind the company by asserting that the legal effect of the former is attributed only to the company on the ground that the person behind the company is a separate person is an abuse of the legal personality in violation of the principle of good faith and therefore, it is not permissible to be against justice and equity. Therefore, the company as well as the person behind the company may be liable

However, if the company seems to be in excess of the personal company of a person behind the corporate personality, in principle, the company's act of juristic act or fact at the time when the juristic act or fact at issue is conducted, whether it did not follow the decision-making procedure prescribed by the law or the articles of incorporation, such as whether the property and work between the company and the person behind the corporate body are mixed to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish them, and whether the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors is not held, the degree of the