beta
Text
1. On December 26, 2014, between C and D and the Defendant, the Plaintiff pursuant to the credit transfer and takeover contract between C and the Defendant.
Reasons
1. One and the second agreement and the assignment of claims;
A. On September 27, 2013, the Plaintiff received from Nonparty C and D (hereinafter “D”) the right to engage in development activities, farmland conversion, and building approval with respect to the E-Japan land, and agreed to pay KRW 200 million to C and D as a consideration therefor (hereinafter “first agreement”). (b) On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 200 million for the permission succession, including development activities under the first agreement, to F (hereinafter “second agreement”).
C. On December 26, 2014, C and D entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the transfer of claim amounting to KRW 200 million on the succession of the above permit, and notified the Plaintiff by content-certified mail.
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the first agreement, KRW 200 million, which the Plaintiff agreed to pay to C and D, was changed to F in accordance with the second agreement.
The defendant argues that the second agreement is false since the above second agreement did not contain a certificate of the personal seal impression of C and D, and the first agreement was not abolished. However, as long as the stamp image and signature fact are recognized, the authenticity of the agreement is recognized, and whether to abolish the second agreement is irrelevant to the gender of the second agreement, the defendant's argument is without merit.
In addition, the above second agreement was drawn up by coercion or deception of the plaintiff and F.
Although it is alleged that it is invalid as a false conspiracy, it is difficult to believe that the entry of Eul 5 as shown in the argument is false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. According to the second agreement, the claim of KRW 200 million against the plaintiff of C and D does not exist any longer. Thus, the agreement on the acquisition of the claim of this case premised on the existence of the claim is null and void.
C. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s Defendant is 200 million won.