beta
Text
1. The defendant's order of Cheongju District Court 2008Gadan24395 against the plaintiffs is based on the original copy of the mediation protocol.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 14, 2008, E filed a lawsuit against the deceased F (the deceased’s death on April 5, 2016, hereinafter “the deceased”) for loans of Cheongju District Court 2008da19362, 2008da24395, and conciliation was concluded with the content that the deceased pays E the amount of KRW 13 million and KRW 30 million, and damages for delay.
B. On May 26, 2015, E transferred a claim following the above conciliation to the Defendant (hereinafter “transfer of claim”) and notified the Deceased of May 27, 2015.
C. On June 15, 2015, the Defendant was granted from the Cheongju District Court the authentic copy of the protocol for conciliation of each loan case (hereinafter “the authentic copy of the protocol for conciliation of loans”) in the above Cheongju District Court 2008Kadan19362, 2008Kadan24395, as a successor to E, by the Cheongju District Court 2008Kadan24395.
The plaintiffs are children of the deceased.
【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidences 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and determination Plaintiffs asserts that compulsory execution based on the original copy of the instant conciliation protocol against the Plaintiffs should be denied, since the assignment of claims in this case is mainly null and void with the focus of allowing litigation.
In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim mainly takes place for the purpose of procedural acts, 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 thus, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void. Whether the main purpose is to conduct procedural acts shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the course and method of concluding the assignment contract, interval between the transfer
(See Supreme Court Decisions 200Da4210 delivered on December 6, 2002, 2006; 2006Da463 delivered on June 27, 2006, etc.). In line with the witness E’s testimony, E shall be the Defendant.