[양수금청구사건][고집1969민(1),218]
For the purpose of preventing seizure from other obligees, the validity of the assignment of nominative claim
Even though the transfer of nominative claim has been done for the purpose of preventing seizure from other creditors, unless it is recognized that the intention to transfer his/her claim has been made, it cannot be said that there has been a false declaration of intention in collusion.
Article 108 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Defendant
Seoul Central District Court (67Ga13379) in the first instance trial
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.
The defendant's attorney shall pay to the plaintiffs 50 million won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from December 14, 1967 to the above full payment system.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution against the above paragraph (1) is sought.
The defendant's attorney is seeking the same judgment as the disposition.
The defendant entered into a contract with the non-party 1 for the purpose of purchasing factories and other real estate owned by the Dong, the defendant's liability of KRW 1,00,000 to the non-party 1 pursuant to the above contract, and the non-party 1's liability of KRW 5,00,000 out of the above claim of KRW 1,00,000 against the defendant on December 28, 1942, the non-party 1 transferred the remainder to the plaintiff 1 and notified the defendant of the above transfer, while the defendant transferred the above transfer to the plaintiff 2, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the defendant approved the above transfer.
Around the time when the Defendant was liable to Nonparty 1 for the above debt, the non-party was ordered to be seized by other creditors because of the fact that the debt owed to the other creditors was large, and the non-party was asked to send a written notice of assignment of the claim to the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2, one's own fraudulent act, to the effect that the defendant sent the written notice of assignment of the claim in order to pretend that the above claim was transferred. Thus, there was a fact that the defendant prepared and sent the written consent to the effect that the above non-party consented to the other non-party's assignment of the claim to the above non-party. However, even if the defendant's assertion itself is based on the non-party 1, even if it was for the purpose of preventing the seizure from other creditors, it cannot be said that the above false indication was made by the defendant that he intended to transfer his claim against the defendant to the committee. In other words, the above claim is groundless.
In other words, the defendant's burden of paying KRW 1,00 to the non-party 1 as the condition that the non-party 1 would not be satisfied, and the non-party 2 would not be entitled to the above non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1'
The plaintiff's claim against the non-party 1 against the non-party 1 was established on condition precedent as the defendant's head of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's claim against the non-party 1 was transferred to the non-party 1 without any objection, and the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1's claim against the non-party 1 was transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's non-party 1's claim against the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's claim against the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party's non-party 1's non-party 1's consent.
Therefore, as seen above, the above claim that the plaintiffs acquired was determined not to fulfill the condition of suspension, and the defendant is entitled to substitute against the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiffs without any judgment on the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs and the defendant should be dismissed. Thus, the original judgment which differs from the original judgment is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, so it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs, since the original judgment is revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the same Act and the defendant's appeal is justified.
Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Judge)