1. The Defendant, jointly and severally with C, as to KRW 139,018,805 and KRW 89,240,000 among them, shall be jointly and severally with C, and as to November 1, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 15, 2010, the Plaintiff is a person who joined C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and retires as of January 3, 2015.

B. On August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for wages with the Jeonju District Court 2016Da24590 on August 23, 2016 due to Nonparty Company’s failure to receive part of the wages during the period of service, and on March 8, 2017, the Plaintiff sentenced that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 89,240,000 and the amount equivalent to KRW 20% per annum from January 17, 2015 to the date of complete payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

(hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that no dispute exists, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. A representative director of the Plaintiff’s assertion that D was the representative director of the non-party company established the Defendant Company that was practically identical in the form and content of the company for the purpose of evading the payment of wages to the Plaintiff. The assertion that the non-party company is a separate legal entity with the Defendant is not permissible under the principle of trust

Since the defendant company is jointly and severally with the non-party company, the non-party company is obligated to pay wages and damages for delay in the final and conclusive judgment of this case.

3. If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company for the purpose of evading debts, the establishment of the new company has abused its corporate system in order to achieve an unlawful purpose of evading debts of the existing company. Thus, the assertion that the above two companies have a separate legal personality cannot be permitted in light of the principle of trust and good faith to the creditors of the existing company.

Therefore, a creditor of an existing company may claim the performance of obligations against one of the above two companies, and this legal doctrine has already been established for the purpose of evading obligations by a company.