The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. This Court shall suspend compulsory execution of 2015 Chicago137.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case, and the non-party company has a claim for the construction cost of the building building B in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and the plaintiff takes over from the non-party company the claim amounting to KRW 59.6 million of the above claim against the defendant of the non-party company, so the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 59.6 million to the plaintiff as the transferee of the claim.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the above assignment contract between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company is invalid since the claim subject to the assignment is not specified. Thus, as seen next, the above assignment contract between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company is not effective since the claim subject to the transfer is not specified.

1) Although the type, amount, etc. of the transferred claim is not required to be specifically indicated in the assignment of claim in accordance with social norms, the transferred claim should be identified to the extent that its identity can be recognizable by distinguishing it from other claims (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da28946 Decided March 14, 2013) (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da28946, Mar. 14, 2013). In full view of the overall purport of pleadings between the Plaintiff and the non-party company, the claim subject to the transfer in the claim transfer contract between the Plaintiff and the non-party company on December 21, 2012 is specified only as “59,60,000 won out of the amount of the construction price owed by the non-party company against the Defendant.” On February 5, 2013, the non-party company’s “transfer claim” is also indicated in the “transfer notice” column sent to the Defendant by content-certified mail to the obligor (the Defendant) as of December 21, 21, 2012.