1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 18,000,000 and its relation thereto shall be from March 14, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 29, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the pertinent land from the Defendant for KRW 28.2 million from the purchase price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name as to the said land on December 31, 2012.

B. D, the Plaintiff’s reference, purchased 90 square meters from the Defendant around 1977 on the land of this case, but the above A.

As stated in the subsection, the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff the damage claim due to nonperformance on March 2013, on the ground that the Defendant’s obligation to perform the registration of ownership transfer under the above sales contract against D was omitted due to the re-sale of the instant land to the Plaintiff. The same year was transferred to the Plaintiff around March 2013.

6. 20. 20. 20. 20. 20. The notice of transfer to the Defendant is completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, and Gap evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. As above, the purport of the Defendant’s assertion is that D’s transfer of the damage claim against the Defendant constitutes a trust in a lawsuit, and thus, the Plaintiff is not eligible to institute the instant lawsuit.

B. 1) In a case where the assignment of a claim, etc. is primarily carried out for the purpose of having a procedural act, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void, even if the assignment of claim does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act. Whether it is the principal purpose of the procedural act shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the developments and methods of concluding the assignment of claim contract, the time interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, and the relationship between the transferor and the transferee, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9539, May 28, 2009). (See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9539, May 28, 2009), the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff’s land along with the Plaintiff’s attached D.