Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the wife of Defendant B and Defendant B, registered the restaurant business with the trade name of “F,” concluded a cafeteria remodeling construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with Defendant C, who actually operates the said restaurant, specifying the construction cost as KRW 185,678,118.

The Plaintiff confirmed the act of non-authorized representation of E, or acquired the claim for construction price against the Defendants from E even if the parties to the instant construction contract were not the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant B and C are primarily obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 70,678,118 (=total construction cost of KRW 185,678,118 – the repayment amount of KRW 115,00,000 up to April 19, 2016) and damages for delay.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Since the Defendants did not conclude the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff, and concluded it with E, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim construction cost against the Defendants.

Nevertheless, the acquisition by transfer of the claim for construction price from E after the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit is null and void as it constitutes a litigation trust with the main purpose of litigation. The instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff without the standing to be a party is unlawful.

B. (1) In a case where the assignment of claims, etc. primarily with respect to making a judgment to proceed with a procedural act, Article 7 of the Trust Act is applied mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claims does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act.

Whether it is the main purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the assignment contract, the time interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, the status relationship between the transferor and transferee, etc.