beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 98, No. 2014, No. 98, No. 2010.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. A. Around June 2013, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 4 million from C, and agreed to make installment payments of KRW 13 million as principal and interest, by September 24, 2013, and thereafter, repaid the total amount of KRW 13.47 million.
On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to additionally borrow 5 million won from C to repay 17 million won by February 5, 2014. By April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid 1,6250,000 won to C.
B. C, on January 29, 2014, by means of documents written at the time of the above lending, drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption of money No. 98, No. 2014, in which the principal amount is KRW 17 million as a delegating of the Plaintiff on January 29, 2014.
C. C, despite having received money from the Plaintiff, on July 31, 2014, assigned to the Defendant a claim based on the said notarial deed. D.
The defendant's transfer of claims from C is null and void as it violates the Trust Act.
2. In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim primarily takes place for the purpose of making judgment litigation, even though the 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) is null and void by analogy. Whether it is the primary purpose of making litigation is to be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the assignment of claim contract, the interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, and the relationship between the transferor and the transferee, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da23412, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the evidence evidence Nos. 10 through 12, the Defendant, a credit service provider, was prohibited from taking over and collecting claims arising from a loan agreement from a person who actually engages in a credit business without registering the loan business. However, the Defendant, a credit service provider, was transferred the claims from the unregistered credit service provider C.