beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 298,175,342 as well as KRW 170,00,000 among them, from March 8, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on this safety defense
A. Under the premise that the Defendant’s main defense defense Plaintiff received a claim under the conciliation protocol against the Defendant from B, the Defendant sought payment of the acquisition amount.
The defendant asserts that the assignment of claims between the plaintiff and B is null and void because it constitutes a litigation trust prohibited under the Trust Act.
B. In a case where the assignment, etc. of claims primarily takes place with the intention of making judgment litigation, Article 6 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void, even if the assignment of claims does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act by analogy. In such a case, whether it is the primary purpose of making litigation be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the developments and methods of concluding the assignment of claims, the time interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, and the relationship between
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da20909 delivered on March 25, 2004). In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that an assignment contract between the Plaintiff and B constitutes a litigation trust with the main purpose of procedural acts.
Rather, according to the contents of evidence Nos. 4 and 8, and the purport of witness C’s testimony and pleading, the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s husband D shall set the amount of KRW 150 million as real estate development fund to E on November 28, 2006 and lend it to E at an interest rate of 3.3%, and Eul shall jointly and severally guarantee the husband’s obligations to the plaintiff and D, and on March 7, 2016, the plaintiff transferred the claim for the conciliation protocol against the defendant in order to repay the above joint and several liability to the plaintiff.
In light of the above facts, the above assignment contract seems to be a transfer contract with a quid pro quo relationship.
Therefore, the defendant's main defense cannot be accepted.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The facts of recognition 1B seek against the Defendant the payment of the loan to the Changwon District Court 2010 Gohap3100.