1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In a case where an assignment of claim, etc. mainly takes place with the intention of having the assignment of claim, even though the assignment of claim does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, Article 7 of the Trust Act is null and void by analogy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da20041, Mar. 26, 1996). Whether the primary purpose is to have the act of litigation is to be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the assignment of claim contract, interval between the transferor and the transferee and the transferee

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da26522 Decided November 12, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 95Da54464 Decided May 16, 1997, etc.). The Plaintiff transferred a claim in the balance of the design cost to the Defendant to B, the representative director, and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim. The Plaintiff thereafter, during the proceeding of the lawsuit in this case, made investment to the effect that the Plaintiff was not qualified as a party because the Plaintiff transferred the claim as above, and the Plaintiff again transferred the claim in this case to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2014, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant again transferred the claim in this case to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2014, may be recognized either by dispute between the parties or by the statements in subparagraphs 2 and 3.

In light of the above facts of recognition in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the transfer of the above claim to the Plaintiff was solely aimed at maintaining the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant.

If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it constitutes a voluntary lawsuit in accordance with the lawsuit trust.