beta
Text
1. The Defendant: 100,000,000 won for Plaintiff A; 50,000,000 won for Plaintiff B; and 50,000,000 won for Plaintiff C; and each of them.
Reasons
1. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim
A. The parties’ assertion that: (a) on January 26, 2012, the Plaintiff A lent KRW 100 million to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”); (b) the Defendant guaranteed F’s obligation to F; and (c) on April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff A transferred the said obligation to E; and (d) the Defendant, as a guarantor, is obligated to pay the said KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim to E.
As to this, the defendant is null and void since the plaintiff A received the above claim from E mainly for the purpose of litigation, and it is not so.
The defendant asserts that the F did not guarantee the F's obligation to F's E.
B. (1) In a case where the assignment of a claim is primarily carried out for the purpose of having a litigation, Article 6 of the Trust Act applies mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, and thus, is null and void. Whether it is the principal purpose of the litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the developments and methods of concluding the assignment of claim contract, the time interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, and the relationship between the transferor and the transferee, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4210, Dec. 6, 2002), and the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff received the transfer of the claim from E with the focus of having the litigation conducted by the Plaintiff A, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Defendant’s argument that the assignment of claim is null
(2) We examine whether the Defendant guaranteed F’s debt to F’s E.
The interpretation of a juristic act is to clearly determine the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of indicating, and it does not include only the language used, but only the parties shall have the meaning of the language regardless of what the parties have to deliberate.