1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party D is dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The defendant's judgment on the defense prior to the merits is null and void since the plaintiff's acquisition of the claim in this case by transfer of the claim in a false manner without a relation to the claim and filing of the lawsuit in this case constitutes a litigation trust and thus, it is unlawful. Thus, in a case where the assignment of claim, etc. mainly takes place with the intent of allowing litigation, even though the assignment of claim does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, Article 7 of the Trust Act is applied mutatis mutandis. Whether it is a principal purpose shall 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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4210, Dec. 6, 2002). According to the evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff prepared a claim transfer and takeover contract with the purport that the Plaintiff acquires the claim of this case from E on July 18, 2017, when the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case and when the claim of this case was transferred from E on July 18, 2017, and the Plaintiff appears to have not paid money to E in return for the claim transfer and takeover.

However, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s Form F bears the Plaintiff’s debt while operating the frequency under the Plaintiff’s name and thereby, incurred expenses by the Plaintiff. Prior to a sales contract which became the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to sell the same subject matter on behalf of the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant and G, on behalf of the mother, prior to the sales contract which became the cause of the instant claim. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff, other than the relationship between the Plaintiff and E arising from such factual relations, files the instant lawsuit, it is difficult to deem that E’s act was the primary purpose of the assignment of claims.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.