1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as evidence additionally submitted by this court, and it is not sufficient to accept the plaintiff's assertion, and it is not sufficient to exclude each description of Gap evidence Nos. 21 through 34 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply). The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff is the same company as G or I added "2. Additional Judgment" as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of "the plaintiff's argument that is the same company as G

2. Additional determination

A. If an existing company of the relevant legal doctrine establishes a new company substantially identical in its form and content in order to evade debts, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the company system in order to achieve the unlawful purpose of evading debts of the existing company.

In such a case, the assertion that the above two companies have separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company is not permissible under the principle of good faith. Thus, the creditors of the existing company may demand the performance of obligations against either of the above two companies.

(2) In order to determine whether a new company was established with the intent to evade the obligations of the existing company, the determination shall be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the management status or asset status at the time of the closure of the existing company, the time of the establishment of the new company, the existence and degree of assets used by the existing company to be a new company, the existence and transfer of assets from the existing company to the new company to the new company, the payment of reasonable price, and whether the existing company has been made. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the existing company and the newly incorporated company are the same company solely on the basis that they are controlled by the same person.

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da24438 Decided August 21, 2008, etc.).

Judgment

Modern Gap evidence Nos. 19, 21 through 28, and 34.