청구이의
1. The claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) dated September 18, 2009 that the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff was served on the Plaintiff on October 5, 2009 and became final and conclusive on October 20, 209.
B. The purport of the instant payment order is that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from September 17, 2009 to the day of complete payment” with respect to KRW 20,721,564 and KRW 7,644,032 among them.
C. The cause of the claim for the instant payment order is the Plaintiff’s credit card payment and credit card debt against the national credit card company, and the Solomon Savings Bank was transferred to the Plaintiff through a limited liability company specializing in Ore-Support Securitization.
On May 6, 2011, Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. transferred the above claim to the defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Eul Evidence No. 6
2. Determination on the grounds for objection
A. 1) The gist of the claim is that the Plaintiff did not notify the transferor of the assignment of the claim from the National Bank of Korea, the Orren Support Limited Company, the Solomon Savings Bank, the Solomon Savings Bank. 2) The notification of the assignment of the claim is a notification of the concept informing the transferor of the transfer of the claim to the obligor, and the notification of the concept is also applied mutatis mutandis to the notification of the legal act's representation. Thus, the notification of the assignment of claim is unreasonable even if the transferor did not directly notify the transferor of the assignment of the claim but through the deceased or by the agent. In such a case, the transferee notified the transferor of the assignment of the claim as the transferor's deceased or the agent.
Thus, it cannot be deemed that the provisions of Article 450 of the Civil Code are violated, and there is no ground to prohibit it otherwise.
(Supreme Court Decision 94Da19242 delivered on December 27, 1994). Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8.