The case holding that the assignment of claims constitutes a litigation trust

Since the assignment of the plant price claims is not a substantial transfer, and it is recognized that the assignment of claims has been made in a trust for the purpose of carrying out a claim for plant price, it is invalid by Article 7 of the Trust Act, which is a trust assignment, the main purpose of which is to allow litigation to be conducted.

Article 7 of the Trust Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap1095) in the first instance trial

The part ordering payment in excess of the next order among the original judgment shall be revoked and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 245,970 won with an annual interest of 5% from April 14, 1972 to the time of full payment. The corresponding appellate part corresponding to the defendant's order to pay the above shall be dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts of the first and second instances, and two parts shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remaining one by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 796,620 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

Revocation of the original judgment and dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim

In other words, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the testimony of Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, and Non-Party 3, Non-Party 4 and Non-Party 5, the result of the record verification at the original trial, and the whole purport of the oral argument on the contents of the evidence No. 1 in which there is no dispute between the defendant and the government agency’s subsidiary plant delivery registration business operator, and there is no dispute over the establishment of

1) On October 30 of 1971, the defendant, who was not a registered business operator, was supplied by the National Medical Center for the supply of plants for November of the same year in the name of the non-party 6, and the defendant received the payment of the payment of the additional plant purchased by the above medical center and agreed to receive the payment of the payment of the payment of the additional plant purchased by the above non-party for the supply of the above medical center and to have the remainder of profit divided by the above non-party. Thus, when the above non-party considered the successful bid on October 26 of the same year, he paid part of the bid bond to the above registered business operator on October 30 of the same year, and caused the above non-party to purchase the subsidiary plant and supply it to the above medical center, and let the above non-party purchase the subsidiary plant and supply it to the above medical center.

2) When Nonparty 6 lacks financial resources, the Defendant purchased a debt from Nonparty 4 on November 2, 1971 to provide it to Nonparty 6 and supplied it to Nonparty 6, and directly purchased a debt from around 20th of the same month and supplied it to the above medical center.

3) In accordance with the agreement with the defendant, the non-party 6 agreed between the plaintiff and the non-party 3, the same non-party 1, the same non-party 7, and the non-party 8, who are merchants of foodstuffs on November 1, 1971, on the condition that when the above food merchants directly transport the subsidiary plants to the defendant under the direction of the non-party 6, they would receive the payment for the above medical care and pay the incidental plant cost to the above medical care center, and under the defendant's name, the plaintiff's 245,970 won for the period from the 15th to the 18th day of the same month; the non-party 3 254,70 won for the growth of the 254,700 won for the first time from the 14th day of the same month to the 222th day of the same month; the non-party 1 supplied the above 215,050 won for the period from April to the 28th day of the same month.

4) After receiving the full amount of the subsidiary plant supplied by the above medical center on December 18, 1971, the Defendant’s payment under the condition that he will win the case by filing a lawsuit of KRW 796,620 on the total amount of the subsidiary plant payments provided by the above food merchants in front of the 30 Plaintiff of the same month, and there is no evidence contrary thereto, so the Defendant, the contractor of the above subsidiary plant supply for the above medical center, is obligated to pay the subsidiary plant payments of the Plaintiffs stuffs purchased by Nonparty 6 and supplied to the above medical center under the Defendant’s name, insofar as he consented to the purchase and supply of the subsidiary plant to be supplied by Nonparty 6.

However, on April 26, 1972, the plaintiff's attorney asserted that the defendant is obligated to pay all of the subsidiary plant payments claims of the above plaintiffs to the plaintiff, since the defendant asserted that the above subsidiary plant payments claims against the plaintiff were transferred to other food merchants on April 26, 1972, the defendant's attorney argued that the above subsidiary plant payments claims of the above plaintiffs against the plaintiff are invalid since the above assignment of claims was conducted to trust the plaintiff's plant payments claims to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant asserted that the above assignment of claims is invalid. Thus, the defendant's establishment and receipt of the subsidiary plant payments are recognized and the contents of Gap evidence presumed to have been completed can be acknowledged by the plaintiff's attorney's assertion based on the presumption that the above subsidiary plant payments were established. However, in the witness's testimony from the above witness 3, the above assignment of claims can be acknowledged that the plaintiff transferred the above subsidiary plant payments claims to the plaintiff solely based on the defendant's payment deposit in the above recognition, so the plaintiff's claims against the above subsidiary plant payments are invalid by the above defendant's trust law.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum, a civil legal interest, from April 14, 1972 to the time of full payment, on the records, to the plaintiff's above plant costs 245,970 won and the following day after the delivery of the plaintiff's complaint in this case. The plaintiff's claim in this case is justified only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed with the ground for rejection. The part of the defendant's appeal that ordered payment in excess of the above cited amount in the original judgment in this conclusion is justified because only the part of the defendant's appeal that responded to the above mentioned original judgment is revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the same Act, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95, 92, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)