A. On June 8, 2011, the Defendant, under the Plaintiff’s guarantee, drafted a cash custody certificate (hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”) stating that “the Defendant shall receive and keep KRW 500 million from C as business funds, and shall immediately return it upon C’s request” (hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”) with the method of performance that “C shall deposit KRW 2-300 million out of the above KRW 500 million up to the end of each year (China factory disposition), and if it is impossible to comply with it, a written statement (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”).

B. After that, on April 26, 2013, the Defendant, under the Plaintiff’s guarantee, drafted to C a letter of undertaking that “the Defendant would pay KRW 43 billion to C by May 30, 2014, and, if the Defendant fails to pay, would offer D real estate to Busan Dong-gu as security” (hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”).

C. On June 26, 2015, C transferred C’s claim against C against the Defendant amounting to KRW 290 million (hereinafter “instant claim”). On July 8, 2015, C notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim and sent the notification to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. On the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant claim from C based on the cash custody certificate of this case against the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that the transfer of the instant claim constitutes a so-called litigation trust with the focus of performing the litigation, and thus, it is unlawful.

B. The Trust Act, even if the assignment of claims does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, in a case where the assignment of claims, etc. primarily takes place for the purpose of making a scambling and litigation, etc.