1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “Plaintiffs” in Part 7 of the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance as “Defendants”; “Until November 25, 2015,” in Part 8 of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “in addition, the agreed interest rate or rate” is added, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance other than the following additional judgments as to the Defendant’s assertion in the trial of the court of first instance; thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant asserts that Article 6 of the Trust Act applies mutatis mutandis to the assignment of claims with the main purpose of having C transfer his claim to the plaintiff for the main purpose of bringing a lawsuit to the plaintiff for the purpose of receiving the instant loan, and that Article 6 of the Trust Act is invalid by analogy.

In cases where the assignment, etc. of a claim mainly takes place for the purpose of litigation, Article 6 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 6 of the Trust Act shall be null and void. In such cases, whether it is the principal purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the assignment of claim, interval between the transferor

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da20909 delivered on March 25, 2004). In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that an assignment contract between the Plaintiff and C constitutes a litigation trust with the main purpose of procedural acts.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 16, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000,000 on the real estate already owned by C on February 16, 2009, but only it is recognized that the said real estate was disposed of by auction around February 2013.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant, as the only property in which C is insolvent, is the Plaintiff with the instant loan claim.