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

Therefore, Defendant B paid KRW 9,634,00 in excess of the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act as shown in attached Table 1, and Defendant C paid KRW 5,545,00 in excess of the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act as shown in attached Table 2, and Defendant B paid KRW 1,119,420 in lieu of the interest accrued at Defendant B’s request, and Defendant B paid KRW 1,119,420 in lieu of the interest accrued at Defendant B’s request, this ought to be returned as unjust enrichment.

However, on February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff received from D the aforementioned claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants (hereinafter “instant contract for transfer of claim”). Since the notice of transfer of claim reaches the Defendants on February 19, 2018, the Defendants are obligated to pay the said unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim.

2. Determination as to the defendants' main defense

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants is unlawful since the Plaintiff received the assignment of claims from D for the purpose of filing a lawsuit on behalf of D, which is confined to the prison without any relationship with D, and the instant lawsuit violates the prohibition of trust in a lawsuit as stipulated under Article 6 of the Trust Act.

B. In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim primarily takes place for the purpose of making judgment litigation, Article 6 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void, even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act by analogy. Whether it is the primary purpose of making litigation is to be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the details and methods of concluding the assignment of claim contract, interval between the transfer contract and the filing of the lawsuit, and

Supreme Court Decision 200Da4210 Delivered on December 6, 2002