1. The plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit of this case that the court changed in exchange for other reasons.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. As to the part of the underlying facts, the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

2. The person who actually carried out the construction of the instant case’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is M.

The Defendant asked M to lend the above construction cost to the Defendant due to the shortage of construction cost, and M to the Defendant’s account, his/her husband’s wife, through the Plaintiff’s account, KRW 13 million on May 11, 2017 (the method of paying KRW 13 million to H who is a lessee), KRW 10 million on May 22, 2017, KRW 50 million on May 25, 2017 (the method of paying KRW 500,000 to the ArchitectJ related to the instant construction), KRW 1,148,40 on June 2, 2017 (the method of paying expenses to the Korea National Land Information Corporation related to the instant construction), KRW 3 million on September 1, 2017, KRW 50 million on April 27, 2018 (the sum of loans to the Plaintiff’s fire-fighting supervisor).

On the other hand, M transferred the above loan claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “transfer of claim”).

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the loan of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff who acquired the above claim.

3. We examine ex officio whether the assignment of claims in this case is invalid as a litigation trust. A.

In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim mainly takes place for the purpose of litigation, Article 7 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 7 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void. Whether it is the main purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the course and method of concluding the assignment contract, interval between the transfer contract and

Supreme Court Decision 91Da26522 delivered on November 12, 1991, Supreme Court Decision 95Da5464 delivered on May 16, 1997