1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of lawsuit arising from the conjunctive claim are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where this court makes an additional decision as follows with respect to the part disputing the plaintiffs as the grounds for appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Plaintiff A acquired the claim for damages and the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants from Nonparty B and H. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay damages and the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim. 2) In a case where the assignment of claims is transferred mainly for the purpose of making judgment litigation, even if the assignment of claims does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, Article 7 of the Trust Act is deemed null and void by analogy. The issue of whether to conduct litigation is the principal purpose shall be determined in light of the following: the process and method of concluding the contract for transfer of claims; the time interval between the transfer and the filing of the lawsuit; and the status relationship between the transferor and the transferee.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4210, Dec. 6, 2002). In full view of the evidence No. 13 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following circumstances are recognized.

① The Plaintiff asserted that the deposit details of B and H were his own damages in the first instance court.

② In the first instance court’s rejection of the foregoing assertion, the reason for the claim was changed by attaching a notice of assignment of claims to the claim for the transfer money.

③ The Plaintiff A’s spouse is Plaintiff A’s spouse, H is Plaintiff A’s children, and the contract for credit transfer and takeover is merely stated as “the transferor is the Suwon District Court 2016Da3716, 2016, 206No868, which the transferor has against the Defendants, and the claim for damages and the claim for return of unjust enrichment by the same court 2016No868.”