채권양도 등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the first instance is partly dismissed as follows, and the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasizing in the trial is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance, except for further determination under paragraph (2). Therefore, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The second 11th written judgment of the court of first instance refers to the "C church (representative F)" as the "C church (representative F; hereinafter referred to as the "C church")", and the "Unincorporated Association D" in the third 6 through 7 acts as the "Unincorporated Association D (representativeO; hereinafter referred to as the "Association D")", respectively.
The "claim, such as Operating Proceeds, etc." in the third 7th sentence of the judgment of the first instance shall be "claim, such as Operating Proceeds, etc.".
The 9th 17th 17th written statement in the judgment of the court of first instance is "each entry", and the 19th 19th "certificate" shall be "21 and 25," respectively.
The 10th written judgment of the first instance court is that "I submitted a written application for coal (A. B. 1-1)" in the 10th written judgment of the first instance is that "I submitted a written application for coal and a written confirmation of fact (A. 1-2), and I testified with the same contents as I appeared as a witness at this court."
2. Additional determination
A. In a case where the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff by fraud, etc., the Defendant stated that F would have received KRW 2,300 in the investigative agency, and that F would have received KRW 2,300,” and that the said 373 transfer certificate (No. 1-6), the Plaintiff stated the name of K at least once without the transferee K and J’s seal, and therefore, K did not take effect at least once.
In addition, the C church urged the Defendant to perform the obligations under the conciliation protocol of this case several times in the name of joint association D with the Defendant on January and February 2009, while K and J did not exercise their rights even after the assignment of claims on April 2009, and among them, as shown in the attached list 2 of the judgment of first instance in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant is the first priority beneficiary.