1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. C lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant on April 1, 1994, and D jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to C.

B. Around December 11, 2003, D subrogated C for KRW 15,850,000, and on April 12, 2013, D transferred the claim for reimbursement against the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Around that time, D notified the Defendant of the assignment of claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 8 (the defendant alleged that the loan certificate (the certificate No. 1) was forged, but considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of appraiser E's written appraisal, it is recognized that the loan certificate (the certificate No. 1) is the defendant's pen, and thus the authenticity of the above loan certificate (the certificate No. 1) is established). The purport of the whole pleadings is as follows.

2. The defendant asserts that D's transfer of the claim for reimbursement of this case to the defendant is null and void as a litigation trust act.

In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim mainly takes place for litigation, even if the assignment of claim does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, Article 6 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void by applying mutatis mutandis. Whether it is the principal purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of all circumstances, such as the course and method of concluding the assignment contract of claim, interval between the transfer contract and the filing of the lawsuit, and the relationship between the transferor

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da4210 Decided December 6, 2002, etc.). In this case, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in each statement of evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the Plaintiff and D, as a husband and wife, provisionally attached the deposit claim in the name of D, and the Plaintiff and D, as their father and wife, paid the repayment by terminating the trust deposit in the name of F, their father and D’s father. In light of the characteristics of marital relationship and the source of repayment, the Plaintiff made a payment to D with respect to certain money.