양수금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
In the instant case claiming that the Plaintiff acquired the above claim amounting to KRW 39 million from C to the Defendant, the Defendant’s acquisition of the above claim constitutes a litigation trust with the main purpose of enabling the Plaintiff to conduct litigation, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and asserted in accordance with Article 6 of the Trust Act, but there is no evidence to regard the above assignment of claim as a litigation trust with the main purpose of enabling the said transfer of claim to conduct litigation, and thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.
Plaintiff’s assertion
The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case. A.
C On October 4, 2005, the Defendant purchased the right to operate the Cheongcheon Street Store in KRW 39 million from the Defendant, and paid the purchase price of KRW 39 million to the Defendant on the same day, but the Defendant did not deliver the above store on the same day, but rescinded the above sales contract around 2006.
B. On March 2015, C transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for the refund of the purchase price due to the cancellation of the above sales contract, and notified the transfer of the claim at that time.
C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the above purchase price of KRW 39 million to the Plaintiff.
Judgment
In full view of the purport of Gap's entries and arguments, Eul remitted 39 million won to the defendant's account on October 4, 2005, and C is recognized as having received each remittance of 39 million won from the defendant on July 8, 2006, < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19693, Aug. 21, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 19648, Aug. 31, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 19807, Sep. 23, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 1980, Sep. 25, 2006>
However, a sales contract was concluded between C and the defendant with the testimony of the witness C and the statement of the witness C to purchase KRW 39 million.
In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable, since it is insufficient to recognize that the above KRW 39 million was paid as the purchase price of the above sales contract, and there is no other evidence to prove this fact.
In particular, C appeared as a witness in this Court and stated as follows.
1. C shall be October 2005