1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 43,616,100 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 5, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, and 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff supplied them to Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "B") from October 31, 2014 to August 10, 2016, and the fact that the amount of goods unpaid to Eul as of August 10, 2016 is recognized as the cause of 43,616,100.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a company established by B for the purpose of evading his/her obligation, and thus, B is obligated to perform his/her obligation to pay for the goods to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is a separate company that differs from B, its organization, and its composition, and thus, the defendant is not liable for the price of the goods of this case.

3. Determination

A. If an existing company of the relevant legal doctrine establishes a new company substantially identical to the form of the existing company for the purpose of evading debts, the establishment of the new company has abused the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading debts of the existing company. Therefore, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality cannot be permitted under the principle of trust and good faith to the creditors of the existing company.

As such, creditors of the existing company may demand the performance of obligations against one of the above two companies.

(2) In cases where an existing company’s assets are transferred to another company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94472, May 13, 201), whether the existing company’s assets are used with the intent to evade its obligations should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the management status or asset status at the time of closure of the existing company’s business, whether the existing company has used the existing company’s assets to be used as another company and its degree, and whether reasonable consideration has been paid

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

As to this case, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15, and No. 1 to No. 2.