1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the bond purchase business under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a construction business operator in charge of the new construction of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Ground Commercial Building, and E is engaged in the creative construction business under the trade name of “F.”

B. On May 18, 2016, E had not completed the instant construction work on June 28, 2016 while performing the construction work at the request of the Defendant at the construction site of the said commercial building (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. On May 18, 2016, E received advance payment of KRW 15 million from the Defendant as the price for the instant construction project. At the time of the completion of the construction at the construction site of this case, E sent a written estimate stating the total construction amount of KRW 23,265,00 to the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the unpaid construction cost related to the instant construction project is KRW 8,265,00 (=23,265,000 - KRW 15 million), and E agreed with the Defendant that the unpaid construction cost is KRW 5 million.

(2) The Plaintiff purchased the instant bonds from E on April 23, 2018, and notified the Defendant of the payment of the construction cost of KRW 5 million against the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 as well as damages for delay.

3. Judgment on a lawsuit trust defense

A. The defendant asserts that the purchase and sale of the instant claim between the plaintiff and E constitutes a litigation trust for debt collection purposes and thus null and void.

B. (1) In a case where a contract for the sale and purchase of a claim was made primarily for making a judgment to conduct procedural acts, Article 6 of the Trust Act shall apply mutatis mutandis even if the contract does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act.

Whether it is the main purpose of having litigation conducted is a contract for the sale of bonds.