beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 2013, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”) had a total of KRW 172,525,220 claims for the purchase price of goods against Samsung F&A (hereinafter “T”) around July 2013.
B. On June 19, 2013, Samsung Open Co., Ltd. entered into an agreement on the assignment of claim amounting to KRW 150,000,000 (hereinafter “instant claim”) among the goods-price claims against Samsung Open Bus Co., Ltd. (a treatment bus Co., Ltd. was changed to a self-employed bus Co., Ltd. on August 13, 2013; hereinafter “treatment bus”) with B (hereinafter “the instant claim”), and thereafter notified treatment buses of the said assignment of claim.
C. On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit against B seeking revocation of fraudulent act, etc. as Busan District Court 2013Gahap18465, and the said court rendered a favorable judgment against B on August 20, 2014, “B shall revoke the first transfer contract of this case.” On August 13, 2013, the court rendered a favorable judgment with the Plaintiff et al. that “B shall transfer the right to claim payment of KRW 150,00,000 out of KRW 165,941,78, deposit money deposited by Samsung F&C No. 3690, Aug. 13, 2013 to the Ulsan District Court 2013.”
B, after dissatisfied with the above judgment and appealed as Busan High Court Decision 2014Na6725, Jun. 1, 2015, B entered into a bond transfer contract with the Defendant on the separate sheet to re-transfer the instant claim (hereinafter “instant second transfer contract”). Around that time, the Plaintiff, etc. notified the treatment bus that he/she would transfer the instant claim. In the above appellate trial, the Plaintiff, etc. exchanged part of the lawsuit that he/she sought notification of the transfer and transfer of the instant claim by means of restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act. On August 19, 2015, the said appellate court re-issued the Defendant on June 1, 2015.