beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2019.07.05 2018가단109118

양수금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On March 31, 2018, the summary of the Plaintiff’s claim: (a) Company C supplied the Defendant with clothing products equivalent to KRW 100,438,182; and (b) issued a tax invoice and held a claim for the purchase price of goods; (c) on April 5, 2018, Vietnam Co., Ltd. transferred the said claim for the purchase price of goods to D (D; hereinafter “D”); and (d) on July 3, 2018, D re-transfer the said claim for the purchase price of goods to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant assignment of claim”). Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee, the amount of KRW 100,438,182, and the delay damages.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Although the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff received the goods payment claim from D, the assignment of the instant claim is null and void as a litigation trust, the main purpose of which is to allow the Plaintiff to conduct litigation.

B. Determination 1) In a case where the assignment of claims has been made with the main purpose of having a procedural act, Article 6 of the Trust Act applies mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claims does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, and thus, is null and void. The main purpose of which is to conduct procedural acts is to be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the process and method of concluding the assignment of claims, the interval between the transfer contract and the filing of the lawsuit, and the personal relationship between the transferor and the transferee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da272103, Oct. 25, 2018). 2) In other words, the circumstances that can be recognized by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the statement in the evidence No. 3, No. 5, No. 1 and No. 2, and the Plaintiff, the representative of D, and the Plaintiff, the representative of D, and the circumstances that the Plaintiff would not have paid the price for the assignment of claims to D, based on the Foreign Exchange Control Act.