1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from July 1, 2017 to April 3, 2018.

Basic Facts

On February 15, 2017, eight (8) including the Plaintiff, as representative creditor, lent a total of KRW 500,000 to the Defendant for a new hotel construction and sales business (hereinafter “instant business”) in Echeon-si, the Plaintiff as a representative creditor, with a total of KRW 500,00,000.

Specifically, 6 plaintiffs, D and 100,000 won each, E, F, G, H, I, and J have lent 50,000 won each to the defendant.

At the time, the Defendant paid the above money in the top priority order within five days after the repayment of the principal and interest with respect to trust property when depositing the first intermediate payment of the instant business, and the repayment date does not exceed June 30, 2017.

On October 5, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired a loan claim of KRW 400,000,000 from the creditors among the above KRW 500,000,000 from the remaining seven creditors, and notified the Defendant by content-certified mail on October 5, 2018.

【No dispute over the ground for recognition”, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 (including the provisional number), and the defendant’s main defense of this case as to the whole purport of the pleading, which the plaintiff’s main defense of this case was transferred to the above 400,000,000 won, is null and void as a lawsuit trust, and therefore, the above 40,000 won out of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

Judgment

In a case where the assignment of claims, etc. is made with the main purpose of having the litigation conducted, even if the assignment of claims does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, Article 6 of the Trust Act is applied mutatis mutandis, which is invalid

Whether the main purpose is to allow litigation shall be determined in light of all the 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 200Da4210 delivered on December 6, 2002, etc.). In addition to the above evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, the entire purport of the pleadings as to evidence Nos. 4 and 6, the Defendant’s business funds of this case from financial institutions.