beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff is a father of C, and the defendant is the wife of D.
B. C around February 2012, upon the request of D to lend 75 million won to the account under the name of the Defendant designated by D, transferred KRW 10 million to the account under the name of the Defendant, and by having the Plaintiff transfer KRW 65 million in total to the account under the name of the Defendant, it lent KRW 75 million to D.
C. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the loan claim amounting to KRW 65 million among the loan loans from C with respect to the above D.
(hereinafter “instant loan claim”). D.
D The Defendant borrowed the instant loan from C to raise funds necessary for running a common life of both spouses. As such, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the instant loan obligations pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Act (Joint and Several Liability for Obligations with respect to Home Affairs).
E. Therefore, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with D to pay the Plaintiff, a transferee of the instant loan claim, KRW 65 million and delay damages therefor.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense
A. The defendant argues that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff acquired the loan claim of this case from C with the main purpose of litigation trust.
B. In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim mainly takes place with the intention of having the assignment of claim to 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 whether it is the primary purpose of having the assignment of claim to litigation shall be determined in light of various circumstances, such as the course and method of concluding the assignment of claim contract, interval between the transfer contract and
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8371 Decided June 25, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da463 Decided June 27, 2006, etc.).
Does, as the case may be, between the parties.