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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the court's explanation of this case is to dismiss "the notification" of No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the notification" of No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter "the assignment of claims of this case"). The part of "the judgment on the previous defense of No. 2. 2." of the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss "the judgment on the previous defense of No. 3. 2." The judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of

2. Parts to be dried;

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is null and void as a litigation trust, since Han-ice education is conducted by lending the plaintiff's name in the form of assignment of claims.

In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim mainly takes place with the intention of having the said assignment of claim does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, Article 7 of the former Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 201) shall be null and void by applying mutatis mutandis even though the assignment of claim does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act. Whether it is the primary purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the details and methods of concluding the contract for the transfer of claim, the interval between the transferor and the transferee

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da23412 Decided March 27, 2014; 2000Da4210 Decided December 6, 2002, etc.). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant filed a fraudulent lawsuit against C by asserting that the transfer contract between Suwon District Court (2012Gahap2667) and the publication right concluded between C was a fraudulent act and the transfer contract between C was a fraudulent act, and on March 27, 2014, the Defendant filed a fraudulent act lawsuit by asserting that the health class, Gap, 1, 21, 26, 27, and 42 evidence (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) were written in relation to the instant case, and the entire purport of pleadings was taken into account as a result of the party examination against the Plaintiff at the trial of the Party.