beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. The parties’ assertion asserts that D’s claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 180,00,000 against D was transferred by D, and that the Defendant filed a claim for the payment of the above amount with the Defendant, and the Defendant asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the Plaintiff received the claim from D for the purpose of the lawsuit trust.
B. In a case where the assignment of a claim, etc. mainly with the focus of allowing the relevant legal acts, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall be applied mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, and the primary purpose is to determine whether to allow the said transfer of claim is null and void, in light of various circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the assignment of claim contract, interval between the transfer contract and the filing of a lawsuit, and
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da8628, Sept. 12, 2013).
Judgment
The following circumstances may be recognized in full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 6.
① The Plaintiff did not express any assertion as to the underlying claim against D. The Plaintiff presented the financial data that the amount was transferred from each account in the name of D and D’s children L from E, F, G, H, I, J, and K during the instant argument, but there is no evidence to prove that it was a monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and D.
② On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D for the transfer of unjust enrichment claims (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of claims”) and filed the instant lawsuit on January 24, 201, and the period from the execution of the instant contract for the transfer of claims to the filing of the lawsuit is only 14 days.
③ In addition, the Plaintiff also claims for return of unjust enrichment from D on January 10, 2014.