logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.10 2014가합590171
양수금
Text

1. As to USD 240,000 and USD 86,250 among them, the defendant against the plaintiff Eul who is the United States of America.

Reasons

1. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. As seen later, Plaintiff A’s claim is based on the consulting contract dated November 20, 2013, and Plaintiff A acquired the above claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay Plaintiff A USD 240,000 and its delay damages. 2) The assignment of claim asserted by Plaintiff A was made for the purpose of the instant lawsuit, and thus is null and void, and the Defendant cannot respond to Plaintiff A’s claim.

B. In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim primarily takes place with the intention of making a legal act of litigation, Article 6 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void, even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act by analogy. 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 contract of claim, interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, and the personal relationship between

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4210 delivered on December 6, 2002, etc.). C.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 and 2-1 and 1-2, Plaintiff B may recognize the fact that Plaintiff B transferred to Plaintiff A claims against the Defendant based on the consulting contract dated November 20, 2013, and notified the Defendant thereof on November 17, 2014.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments set forth in No. 4 and No. 16 (including virtual numbers), i.e., ① Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B as a middle school building building, and ② Plaintiff B claimed payment of fees under the above contract on June 24, 2014, which is 2 months before the said assignment of claims, to the Defendant, but for which one month has not elapsed from the notice of the said assignment of claims.

arrow