beta
Text
1. The portion of the claim as to KRW 135,00,000 among the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 61,00,000.
Reasons
1. Determination on the claim amounting to KRW 135,00,000
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C had a claim for a loan amounting to KRW 135,00,000 against the Defendant. Since the Plaintiff acquired the claim by transfer, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above loan to the Plaintiff.
B. The defendant's defense is invalid since C filed the lawsuit of this case to collect money lent by C to the defendant, but C received the claim against the defendant during the lawsuit, which constitutes a trust with the main purpose of litigation.
C. In a case where the assignment of claims is primarily performed with respect to making judgment litigation, Article 7 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. Whether it is the principal purpose of making litigation ought to be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the course and method of concluding the assignment of claims, interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, and the personal relationship between the transferor
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da74919 Decided September 24, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da74919, Sept. 24, 2015). According to each of the statements and arguments and the entire purport of the statement and arguments in this case, C holds a certificate of 135,00,000 foot loan recorded by the Defendant as the borrower, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, including the above claim for the loan against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff received the claim KRW 135,00,000 from C around July 2017, and around February 12, 2018, it can be recognized that C notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim.
In the above facts, the following circumstances revealed by the prior evidence, that is, the Plaintiff appears to have not paid the price for the acquisition of claims to C, and the Plaintiff did not properly explain the reason why the claim was transferred to C.