A. On March 30, 2010, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the Plaintiff, a joint surety D and the debtor D, as Seoul Eastern District Court 2010 Ghana51871. The above court rendered a decision of performance recommendation for D Co., Ltd. on April 21, 2010. The decision of performance recommendation was finalized on July 19, 2010, which became final and conclusive on July 19, 2010 after the service by public notice was not served against the Defendant. The above court rendered a final and conclusive judgment on July 19, 2010 that “the Plaintiff would jointly and severally with D Co., Ltd., pay to the Nonparty Co., Ltd. 16,659,89 won and 15,165,154 won among them at the rate of 33% per annum from February 11, 2010 to the date of complete payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

B. On May 20, 2016, the Defendant acquired all the rights of the non-party company against the Plaintiff from the non-party company, and the non-party company applied for the re-issuance of the instant judgment and the grant of the succeeding execution clause on December 18, 2017, and on December 22, 2017, the Seoul Eastern District Court issued the succeeding execution clause on the instant judgment by a junior administrative officer.

(hereinafter “instant succeeding execution clause”). [The grounds for recognition] / Each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the defendant did not acquire the claim against the plaintiff of the non-party company, and received it.

Even if the principal obligor and the Plaintiff did not notify the fact of the assignment of the claim, and the notification place to the non-party company was served to the "Seoul Seocho-gu E" rather than the domicile of the non-party company, and the notification of the assignment of claim in lieu of the newspaper announcement does not comply with the procedure, so the notification of the assignment of claim does not have any legal effect. Therefore