1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related costs shall begin on April 20, 2013.

1. As to the main defense

A. Since the Plaintiff, without compensation, acquired bonds from C and conducted litigation, the said acquisition of bonds constitutes a litigation trust and thus becomes null and void.

B. On November 26, 2013, C filed the instant lawsuit seeking the acquisition amount on June 26, 2015, with the Plaintiff, by transferring C’s loan claims to the Defendant (the date of preparation of the transfer contract is indicated as November 26, 2012, but is deemed written in writing) and by notifying the Defendant of the transfer on December 4, 2013.

[Recognitions] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as well as significant facts

C. Determination 1) In a case where the assignment of claims, etc. primarily takes place with the intention of having a litigant conduct the litigation, Article 6 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void, even if the assignment of claims does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act. Whether it is the principal purpose of the litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the details and methods of concluding the assignment of claims contract, the interval between the transfer contract and the filing of the lawsuit, and the personal relationship between the transferor and the transferee (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4210, Dec. 6, 2002). 2) The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on Nov. 26, 2013, not immediately institute the lawsuit, but on Jun. 26, 2015, where one year and seven months have passed since the transfer of claims. It is difficult to conclude that the transfer of claims was mainly conducting the litigation, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

2. As to the merits

A. The Plaintiff C lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million and the interest or delay damages thereon. 2) The Defendant did not borrow any money from the Defendant, and the Defendant-friendly Gu I borrowed the money.

B. 1) On June 14, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land outside Pyeongtaek-gun and two parcels (hereinafter “instant land”).