법인격남용의 새로운 유형과 법인격부인이론의 적용 - 2005. 7. 7. 선고 서울중앙지법 2004가단273159 판결 및 2006. 3. 30. 선고 서울고등법원 2005나61821 판결과 관련하여 -

This article reconsiders the theory of disregard of corporate entity or piercing the corporate veil: the most litigated issue in corporate law. Corporations are recognized as legal entities separate from their shareholders, officers, and directors. In other words, a corporation enjoys the limited liability, and shareholders of a corporation is not responsible for the debt of the corporate entity. Limited liability tempts insiders to exploit the corporation's creditors. Courts have articulated several tests for piercing the corporate veil, such as the instrumentality or the alter ego doctrines. Thus, piercing may happen if some criteria meet: (1) absence of formalities of corporate existence(alter ego), (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) personal use of corporate funds, (4) perpetration of fraud by means of the corporate vehicles. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned traditional principles of piercing the corporate veil may not work properly due to the evasion of the regulation. As a general rule foreclosure sale interrupts the conveyance of the liability of the former entity in Korea. Therefore, the liabilities of the former may not transfer to the latter. Under the United States case law, however, a successor may be held liable for the debts and liabilities of a former corporation whose assets it purchased at foreclosure or judicial sale. It is reconsidered that the piercing the corporate veil may apply to the evasion of regulation for preventing fraudulent foreclosure sale.