beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the business of manufacturing and selling paint and paint, and the Defendant is a legal entity that runs soil construction business, painting construction business, etc.
B. On July 21, 2015, F, the representative of “D” (the opening date: May 17, 2014; the location of a place of business: Sinsan City E, Type of Business: painting, page, etc.) entered into a credit transfer contract with the Plaintiff, stating that “In order to repay KRW 150,089,150 to the Plaintiff the material cost obligation against the Plaintiff, only the amount determined and completed after settlement of the amount, among KRW 150,089,150, the Defendant’s credit against the Plaintiff, shall be transferred to the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant credit transfer contract”). At that time, F notified the Defendant of the fact of the instant credit transfer.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff alleged by the party, asserting that the F was transferred KRW 150,089,150 against the defendant by the F to the defendant, the defendant filed a claim against the defendant for the payment of the money stated in the purport of the claim as transfer money. The defendant, the defendant is merely the representative in the name of "D", and the person who actually operated "D" is the husband of F, who transferred the claim to the plaintiff as above. G is also G who is the defendant's husband. Since G is in the management status of the defendant's construction site and supplies paint supplied from the plaintiff to the defendant more than necessary and unilaterally claims the payment. The defendant unilaterally set the amount claimed by the plaintiff as transfer, and the defendant is not allowed to recognize the claim of the amount claimed by the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant suffered damage of KRW 460,119,395 due to the tort, such as G's fraud, theft, etc., and the plaintiff concluded the contract of this case with G with the knowledge of the above tort, which is invalid as a anti-social legal act.
Even if the defendant has the damage claim against G, the defendant shall make the plaintiff's automatic claim.