1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A.F remitted money to the Defendants’ account as follows:

Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B.

Defendant C D Defendant D’s KRW 20 million on September 6, 2013, KRW 20 million on September 23, 2013, KRW 15 million on September 23, 2013, KRW 15 million on September 23, 2013, KRW 26.5 million on October 31, 2013, KRW 25 million on December 11, 2013, KRW 25 million on December 11, 2013.

B. On December 16, 2016, F and the Plaintiff: (a) drafted a contract on the assignment of claims stating that “F’s loans worth KRW 86.5 million against Defendant B, C, and E and the loans worth KRW 79 million against Defendant D (hereinafter “the total amount of the above loans”) shall be transferred to the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff, who is delegated with the F’s right to notify, on March 3, 2017, notified the Defendants of the assignment of claims.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2 through 5 (if there is an additional number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendants asserts that the instant claim constitutes a litigation trust for the sole purpose of filing a lawsuit, and that the instant claim constitutes a lawsuit trust for the sole purpose of filing a lawsuit, and that the instant claim is unlawful.

In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim mainly takes place for the purpose of litigation, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall apply mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, and thus, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void. Whether it is the main purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the course and method of concluding the assignment contract, interval between the transfer contract and

(Supreme Court Decision 200Da4210 Decided December 6, 2002, etc.) In light of the above legal principles, according to the health care unit, Gap, 7, 15, 17 evidence, Eul evidence 4, and evidence 11-1, the plaintiff is G.