beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
(a) Recognition 1) The Treatment Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Treatment Industry Development”);
) Studio Construction Co., Ltd. and Duna Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sudio Co., Ltd.”)
(2) On October 15, 2013, with respect to the construction work related to the housing reconstruction project of Samcheon-ro 2 complex apartment housing reconstruction, the treatment industry development agreed to pay to the non-party company KRW 30 million until November 15, 2013, and KRW 50 million until December 15, 2013 (hereinafter the above claim amounting to KRW 50 million).
(2) On February 11, 2014, Nonparty Company entered into a contract to transfer the instant claim to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract to transfer claims”) and notified the obligor’s development of treatment industry by content-certified mail. The content-certified mail was served on the Development of the Treatment Industry on February 13, 2014.
3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application against the non-party company for a payment order under Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Order 2014Ra93. Accordingly, the non-party company filed an objection against the payment order issued thereunder, and the above court rendered the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on July 9, 2014.B. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant assignment of claims should be cancelled as a fraudulent act inasmuch as the non-party company more deepens the non-party company’s debt excess or lacks the debt excess status by entering into a contract to transfer the instant claim to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant assignment of claims should be cancelled as a fraudulent act. On the other hand, it is difficult to find that the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 alone were in excess of the debt at the time of the instant transfer contract, or were placed in excess status due to the instant transfer of claims, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise (the court’s fact-finding reply against the NICE Credit Assessment Company’s entire arguments as to the NICE Credit Assessment Company.