청구이의
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
On March 29, 2011, the Seoul Central District Court against the defendant's plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of this court concerning this part of the facts admitted is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made and delivered a power of attorney to transfer the claim of this case to D, thereby transferring the claim of this case to the Plaintiff. Since D set-off the claim of this case against the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment return obligation it owes to the Plaintiff and agreed that there was no mutual claim and liability relationship between the Plaintiff and D, the obligation of this case that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant was extinguished.
Even if the Defendant intended to delegate only the collection authority, not the claim itself, to D, this cannot be asserted as invalid against the Plaintiff who is a bona fide third party as a false declaration of conspiracy, and thus, it is valid as an expression of intent of assignment of claims as indicated in the above power of attorney.
In addition, since the defendant was paid some of the judgment amount of this case, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall not be permitted.
B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3 as to whether to transfer the claim of this case 1, the defendant transferred the right to claim against the case in which the collection order was issued to Eul (the defendant), the mandatary D, and the above mandator B (the defendant) to D, who accepted the claim of this case, as to November 18, 201.
It is recognized that the power of attorney as described in " was prepared and delivered to D," and that the agreement of this case drawn up between the plaintiff and D "the defendant confirmed that the claims against the plaintiff were taken over by D, and that any claims and obligations relating to the above assignee claims remain between the plaintiff and D.
The facts stated in the judgment, and the defendant's June 19, 2012 to the plaintiff.