1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit by acquiring the claim from C pursuant to the second rejection of the instant second rejection is because C is China and it is difficult to perform litigation in the Republic of Korea, and C was issued a summary order due to assaulting the Defendant on the date of preparation of the second rejection of the instant second rejection, and it is likely that the said payment rejection would be deemed invalid or cancelled.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that there was a transaction relationship with C only when it was found that there was a transaction relationship with C, while submitting the application for the instant payment order within 8 days after the assignment of claims. Therefore, it is difficult to believe the above argument.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s transfer of claims from C constitutes a litigation trust with the main purpose of enabling litigation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is unlawful.

B. In a case where the assignment of a claim is mainly carried out for judgment litigation, Article 6 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void by analogy even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, and whether it is the principal purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the course and method of concluding the assignment of claim contract, interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, and the relationship between the transferor and the transferee, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da272103 Decided October 25, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da272103, Oct. 25, 2018). In other words, the following facts acknowledged by adding the entire purport of pleadings to the statement No. 5, namely, the Plaintiff’s total KRW 35,513,110 to C from October 20 to February 22, 2018.