1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) seeking the return of the price of goods. On July 13, 2012, Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da440575, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment to the effect that “Nonindicted Company shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 66,719,90 and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from May 4, 2012 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). The final judgment of this case became final and conclusive on August 23, 2012.

B. The plaintiff did not receive money from the non-party company at all due to the final judgment of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim 1) The Defendant Company is a company established by the Nonparty Company to evade existing obligations and abused its corporate system to achieve the unlawful purpose of evading obligations. Accordingly, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, and the Nonparty Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount to be borne by the Plaintiff in accordance with

B. Where an existing company has established a new company substantially identical in the form and content of the existing company for the purpose of evading its obligations, the establishment of the new company has abused its corporate system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading its obligations. Therefore, the assertion that the existing company and the new company have a separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company cannot be permitted in light of the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, the creditors of the existing company may demand the performance of obligations even against the existing company and either of the newly incorporated

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da66892, Nov. 12, 2004). Such a legal doctrine applies to a case where a company uses another company already established with the same type and content as that of an enterprise for the purpose of evading its obligations.