logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.12.14 2015가단114960
양수금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Around May 2012, E&L A&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A&C”) transferred D the Defendants’ claim amounting to KRW 13,400,000 for the remuneration of fire-fighting equipment, and notified the Defendants of May 21, 2012.

B. On September 21, 2015, D transferred to the Plaintiff the claim amounting to KRW 13,400,000, totaling KRW 189,312,000 for land usage fees, and KRW 202,712,00 for land use fees (hereinafter “transfer of claim”). On the same day, D notified the Defendants of the above fact and sent their intent to the Defendants at that time.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6

2. The Plaintiff asserted that D had a claim for unjust enrichment against the Defendants regarding land use, etc., but the Plaintiff acquired the above claim against the Defendants. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 4,150,070 and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendants asserted that the assignment contract of this case was unlawful as it constitutes a litigation trust inasmuch as it was mainly performed for the purpose of procedural acts.

B. In a case where an assignment of claim, etc. mainly takes place for the purpose of making judgment litigation, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall apply mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, and whether it is the primary purpose of making litigation be determined in light of various circumstances, such as the course and method of concluding the assignment of claim, interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, and the personal relationship between the transferor and the transferee.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8371 Decided June 25, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da463 Decided June 27, 2006, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the health unit as to the instant case and each of the aforementioned evidence are examined.

arrow