1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

(b).

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: Gap’s evidence No. 13 submitted by the plaintiff to this Court is added as evidence for fact-finding; and except for the addition of the following between three and sixteen (17) judgments of the court of first instance, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated “1. Basic Facts” and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

D. On August 29, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “transfer of claim”), and around that time, notified the deceased’s heir of this.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Whether the assignment of claims in this case is invalid or not, the defendant asserts that the assignment of claims in this case against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor in this case is invalid because it is mainly conducted litigation. The issue of whether the assignment of claims in this case is invalid or not is related to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor in this case, which is a preliminary review

In a case where the assignment of claims 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 the transferee, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da272103 Decided October 25, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da272103, Oct. 25, 2018). First of all, the fact that the Plaintiff rendered the instant assignment of claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on August 29, 2019, after

However, there are various circumstances, which can be known in accordance with the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 14, 15, 16, and Eul evidence No. 11, and especially the plaintiff succeeding intervenor around 2018.