1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, except where the court additionally determines the defendants' assertion, and therefore cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. 1) The Defendants’ assertion on the trust of lawsuit 1) The actual operator of the non-party company (Co. D) is the Plaintiff and the non-party company and the Plaintiff are assigned with respect to the primary loan claim (hereinafter “transfer of claim of this case”) on the ground that the non-party company would be liquidated due to the lack of financial circumstances.

(2) In a case where the assignment of claims, etc. is performed mainly with the main purpose of litigation, the above assignment of claims is deemed null and void by applying Article 6 of the Trust Act, even if the assignment of claims does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act. Whether it is the main purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of the following: the process and method of concluding the assignment of claims; the time interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit; and the personal relationship between the transferor and the transferee, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4210 Decided December 6, 2002, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the health care unit as to the instant case is asserted by the Defendants, i.e., the circumstances in which the Plaintiff was actually operating the non-party company.

It is insufficient to recognize that the assignment of claims constitutes a litigation trust on the sole basis of the fact that the financial situation was difficult at the time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts of recognition and the contents of Gap evidence No. 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings, are considered as follows.