1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's arguments B, C, D, and E are those who worked as taxi drivers at the defendant company. The defendant company is obligated to pay the above contract amount and delay damages to the plaintiff to the plaintiff, as well as the above contract amount under the labor-management agreement on June 21, 2005 between the former National Housing Workers' Union Seoul District Military Workers' Union and the defendant company and the defendant company on June 21, 2005 (B: 2.1 million won, C: 90 million won, D: 3.45 million won, E: 2.4 million won, etc.).

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff was transferred claims from B, C, E, and D solely for the purpose of filing the instant lawsuit, and thus is null and void as it constitutes a litigation trust.

B. In a case where the assignment of a claim is mainly carried out with respect to making judgment litigation, Article 6 of the Trust Act applies mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, so it shall be null and void. Whether it is the primary purpose of making litigation is to be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the details and methods of the assignment of claim contract, the interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, and the personal relationship between the transferor

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da23412, Mar. 27, 2014). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, namely, ① the plaintiff also served as a taxi driver at a defendant company as a person who had been employed by the defendant company, together with 41 other taxi drivers, before the instant case, filed a contract suit for the same contents as in the instant case and carried out the lawsuit as the designated party (Seoul East District Court Decision 2010Da22772, Seoul High Court 2012Na597), and the instant lawsuit asserts the claims of the parties omitted in the previous lawsuit.