손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff A ordering additional payment is revoked.
The defendant is the plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the second order”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Each share in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted.
The following shall be added after the third 7th day of the first instance judgment:
On July 5, 2018, Non-Party I transferred to Plaintiff A the right to claim damages, the right to claim damages for consolation money, and the right to claim damages for delay due to the infringement of the right to sunshine of the O apartment (hereinafter “instant assignment contract”).
) On July 6, 2018, a notice of the assignment of claims was served on the Defendant on July 6, 2018, and the notice of the assignment of claims was changed to “A No. 3” in the fourth instance judgment of the first instance.
The following shall be added to the fourth nine (9) of the judgment of the first instance:
3. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. The Defendant’s main purpose of concluding the instant assignment contract with the Plaintiff A is to have the Plaintiff conduct litigation, and Article 6 of the Trust Act is null and void by applying mutatis mutandis Article 6 of the Trust Act. As such, the part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit that received the assignment of claim from the said I is unlawful.
B. In a case where the assignment of claims is made with the main purpose of having the litigant conduct litigation, even if the assignment of claims does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, Article 6 of the Trust Act is applied mutatis mutandis, which is null
Whether the main purpose is to allow litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the assignment contract, the time interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, the status relationship between the transferor and the transferee, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da272103 Decided October 25, 2018). C.
The fact that Plaintiff A and I entered into the instant contract for the assignment of claims on July 5, 2018 in the course of the instant appellate trial is as seen earlier in the facts acknowledged, and Plaintiff A filed incidental appeal on August 6, 2018.