The Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “ Co., Ltd.”) and A(B) supplied vessel materials, paints, etc. to the Defendant as shown in the attached Table [Attachment], and each of them had a claim for the price of goods in KRW 24,310,00 and KRW 83,447,210.

B. On June 7, 2014, both the friendly shock industry and A transferred the claim against the Defendant for each of the goods price claims (hereinafter “transfer of each of the instant claims”) to the Plaintiff, and on June 12, 2014, notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer of the instant claims through content-certified mail.

The above assignment notification reached the defendant at that time.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff claimed the payment of the above amount to the defendant by asserting that he received the claim for the price for the goods from the friendly shock industry and A (24,310,000 won) from the friendly shock industry and A (24,310,447,210 won). The defendant received the claim for the payment of the above amount to the defendant without any obligation between the friendly shock industry and A, and therefore, the defendant received the claim for the performance of the lawsuit of this case primarily without any obligation and obligation between the friendly shock industry and A, so the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. In a case where the assignment of a claim, etc. mainly with the focus of allowing the relevant legal acts, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall be applied mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, and the primary purpose is to determine whether to allow the said transfer of claim is null and void, in light of various circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the assignment of claim contract, interval between the transfer contract and the filing of a lawsuit, and

Supreme Court Decision 2012Da8628 Decided September 12, 2013