1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

4...

1. Basic facts

A. Preliminary Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) transferred KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant on January 26, 2007 (hereinafter “the instant money”), and KRW 500,000,000.

B. On July 4, 2009, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate as follows (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) and ordered the Plaintiff B to do so.

No later than December 30, 2012, the amount referred to above 20 million won (20,000,000 u) shall be paid in full, not later than December 30, 2012 (in full, as soon as the above amount is resolved in the case of the Seocho Police Station)

C. On October 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs drafted a claim transfer and takeover contract under which Plaintiff B transferred the claim amounting to KRW 20,000,000 against the Defendant to Plaintiff A.

Plaintiff

B notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail on October 7, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of Plaintiff A’s lawsuit

A. The Defendant’s main defense asserts that the Plaintiff A acquired his claim against the Defendant as asserted by the Plaintiff B.

In this regard, the defendant acquired a claim for the trust of lawsuit, and thus, the plaintiff A's lawsuit is unlawful.

B. The assignment of claims, the main purpose of which is to conduct judgment litigation, is to be null and void by applying Article 7 of the former Trust Act mutatis mutandis.

The main reason for allowing litigation should be determined in light of various circumstances such as the process and method of concluding the assignment contract, the time interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, the status relationship between the transferor and transferee, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4210 delivered on December 6, 2002, etc.). We examine this case.

Plaintiff

A seems to be an employee of a lawyer's office.

Plaintiff

A does not specify at all the relationship with itself, the circumstances leading up to the acquisition of the claim, the price paid to the Plaintiff B, etc., and there is no indication related to the bond transfer contract (Evidence A 3).