beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is that “12,8018,207,700 won for building value” in Part 5 of the third fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance is “12,808,207,700 won for building value”, “the name of the plaintiff in the name of the third and third names” shall be “the name of the defendant”; “the plaintiff and the plaintiff” in Part 12 of the seventh and fourth of the judgment shall be “the defendant”; “the plaintiff and the plaintiff” in Part 14 of the seventh and fourth of the first judgment shall be “the defendant”.
B. The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the following, with the exception of the provisional application of the claim for proceeds:
2. Article 9 (1) 2 of the instant business agreement between the defendant and Sodsan Cron as to the validity of the instant contract on acquisition of the claim of this case (hereinafter referred to as "ABA claim for profits of this case"). The plaintiff takes over KRW 120,00,000, out of the amount of the claim for profit against the defendant of Sodsan Cron C in accordance with the instant business agreement on May 26, 2010, the defendant notified the defendant of the assignment of the claim on the same day, and the defendant notified the defendant of the assignment of the claim on the grounds that the grounds for termination of the instant business agreement occurred on June 8, 2010, July 29, 2010, and November 17, 2010, as provided for in Article 9 (1) 2 of the instant business agreement.
According to the above facts, Article 9 (1) 2 of the business agreement of this case prohibits transfer of rights to the business agreement of this case to Socsan, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant, as a sanction against the violation, can terminate the business agreement of this case between the defendant and Socsan as a kind of special agreement on prohibition of assignment of claims between the defendant and Socsan. Accordingly, the plaintiff's special agreement on prohibition of assignment of claims is concerned.