beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The plaintiffs' assertion
A. From around 2014 to E and six other parties (hereinafter “the transferor of this case”), the Plaintiffs acquired a total of KRW 304,299,000 loans from each of them against the E and 6 parties (hereinafter “around 2014”) (hereinafter “the instant claim for acquisition money”), and thus, the aforementioned acquisition money is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the said acquisition money.
B. From August 13, 2003 to August 28, 2008, the Defendants embezzled a total of KRW 5,809,59,239 on 13 occasions from the above Capital Capital Korea’s diesel Investment, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the amount of embezzlement.
C. In order to preserve the claim for the instant amount of the transfer money, the Plaintiffs seek the payment of the said damages against the Defendants in subrogation of the said capital gains Korea’s diesel investment.
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.
(b) The transferor cannot set up against the obligor or any third person unless he has notified the obligor or has given his consent.
(Article 450, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act).
With respect to the instant case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the transferor, as the debtor, notified the transfer of the claim to the Huntha Korea A, and there is no evidence to support that the transferor, as the debtor, gave notice of the transfer of claim to the Huntha Korea Partnership and the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (According to the record of the evidence No. 10), and there is no evidence to support that the above Huntha Korea Investment Co., Ltd. accepted the transfer of claim, so long as the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have the claim for the transfer of claim against the Huntha Korea Venture Investment, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to exercise their rights on behalf of the Defendants of the Huntha Korea Venture Investment in lieu of the above Huntha Korea Investment.
3. Conclusion