beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 170,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from September 26, 2015 to December 24, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 18, 2012, the Defendant and C drafted a monetary lending and borrowing contract (hereinafter “instant monetary lending and borrowing contract”) with the content that the Defendant would lend KRW 450,000,000 from C to September 25, 2015 (hereinafter “instant monetary lending and borrowing contract”).
B. On July 17, 2014, the claim transfer and takeover contract (hereinafter “instant claim transfer and takeover contract”) and the notice of claim transfer were delivered to the Plaintiff by content-certified mail, stating that C’s claim amounting to KRW 270,000,000,000, out of C’s loan 450,000,000, was transferred to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits
A. As to the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking the payment of KRW 270,000,000, the defendant asserted to the effect that since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case with the knowledge that the monetary transaction between C and the defendant had been settled, it was unlawful since the plaintiff's lawsuit was based on the lawsuit trust for the purpose of litigation.
B. 1) In a case where the assignment of claims, etc. is primarily performed for the purpose of having the trustee conduct the procedural acts, even if the assignment of claims does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, a trust with the main purpose of having the trustee conduct the procedural acts shall be null and void.
(2) The issue of whether to allow an assignment of claims is invalid by analogy, and whether to allow an act of litigation ought to be determined in light of various circumstances, such as the circumstance and method of concluding the assignment of claims, the time interval between the assignment of claims and the filing of the lawsuit, and the personal relationship between the transferor and the transferee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da8371, Jun. 25, 2004; 2012Da8628, Sept. 12, 2013).