beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, United Nations Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCC”), D, and E in accordance with the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2006Da78566, Mar. 14, 2007, and the above court decided to recommend reconciliation that “the Defendant shall pay 300,000,000 won to C jointly and severally with UNC, D, and E until April 30, 2007. If the Defendant fails to comply therewith, the Defendant shall pay the amount calculated in addition to the rate of 15% per annum from May 1, 2007 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “Recommendation for Settlement”). The above Reconciliation was finalized on April 3, 2007.
B. On March 7, 2017, C transferred to the Plaintiff the credit held against the Defendant in accordance with the instant recommendation for reconciliation (hereinafter “the instant credit”), and notified the Defendant of the notification with the content certification and reached the Defendant on March 24, 2017. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription on March 29, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The defendant asserts that the transfer of the claim of this case is null and void as a trust with the main purpose of enabling the transfer of the claim of this case to proceed with litigation.
B. In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim primarily takes place with the intention of having the assignment of claim, Article 7 of the Trust Act applies mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, and thus, is null and void. Whether it is the primary purpose of having the assignment of claim, shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the course and method of concluding the assignment of claim contract, interval between the transfer
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4210 delivered on December 6, 2002). C.
In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.
Each evidence mentioned above and each such evidence.