beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 7, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
C There is no dispute between the parties that loans KRW 20 million to the defendant in 2009 and KRW 19 million in 2012.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions (including paper numbers) of the evidence Nos. 1-1 to 3-2 and the testimony of the witness C, C transferred the above loan claims against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on November 5, 2013, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of such claims. The above notification may be acknowledged to have been delivered to the Defendant around that time.
Therefore, the Defendant, as the obligor, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, 39 million won, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 7, 2013 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.
As to this, the defendant argues that the above assignment of claims constitutes a trust with the main purpose of enabling the plaintiff, who is the trustee, to conduct litigation, and thus, it is invalid under Article 6 of the Trust Act.
However, in addition to the defendant's absence of any evidence, it seems that C transferred monetary benefits to the plaintiff of the pro-related party to the extent that C is the same as that of the adopted child, and the background in which C appears to have been able to think that there were various motives, including economic interests, regardless of whether supported by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received delegation of collection professionally or repeatedly, and that there is no proof of assertion that the defendant had a ground for human defense against C, so it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff acquired claims for the purpose of avoiding this, and that this case is an attorney-at-law as the plaintiff's legal representative.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.