logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나112282
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the defendant is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added a judgment on a new argument made by this court to the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

(2) The grounds for appeal by the Defendant do not differ from the allegations in the first instance court except for the new argument that is examined in the following 2.2., in view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal). 2. In addition, the Defendant did not have any evidence as to the fact that the Plaintiff has an interest in receiving a loan claim against the Defendant against the Defendant from the Plaintiff, and therefore, the assignment of such claim is deemed null and void by applying Article 7 of the Trust Act to the assignment of claim, the main purpose of which is to enable the Plaintiff to conduct litigation.

In a case where the assignment of claims, etc. is primarily performed for the purpose of making another person conduct litigation and litigation, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall apply mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claims does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, and thus, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall be null and void. Whether it is the principal purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the course and method of concluding the assignment of claims contract, interval between the transfer contract and

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da34206, Jan. 11, 2007; 2012Da23412, Mar. 27, 2014). Furthermore, the burden of proof as to the fact that the act of trust in a lawsuit is an act of trust in a lawsuit has the burden of proof on the defendant who asserts it

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da9156 Decided July 28, 2006). The Plaintiff and C are married couple on January 2, 2003, and C are the Defendant on October 17, 2017.

arrow