집행문 부여의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) filed an application against the Defendant for payment order with the Incheon District Court 2017 tea14398, and on May 29, 2017, the Defendant received an order to pay “the Defendant would pay KRW 2,968,023 to Nonparty Bank and delay damages therefrom”.
And the above payment order was finalized on June 15, 2017.
B. On December 18, 2017, Nonparty bank, submitted by the Plaintiff on December 18, 2017, concluded an asset acquisition agreement (a contract written between Nonparty bank and the Plaintiff) on the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 3 was concluded on December 18, 2017 by the contract date.
However, the notice of assignment of claims (A No. 2) sent to the Defendant is written that the claim was transferred as of December 22, 2017 according to the contract for the purchase and sale of claims on December 15, 2017.
A. The Plaintiff’s status as the Defendant
On February 1, 2018, on the part of the defendant's domicile, the notice of assignment of claims was sent by stating the defendant's obligation as "Ma building and E".
However, the above notice of assignment of claims was not served.
C. Meanwhile, on February 4, 2003, the defendant made a move-in report to the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D building and E, which is the present domicile on February 4, 2003.
In addition, the copy of the complaint of this case was sent to the address, but was not served.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap's 1 to 4, and a significant fact to this court
2. The transferor shall not be required to notify the obligor of the nominative claim, or set up against the obligor unless the obligor approves it.
(Article 450(1) of the Civil Act. However, according to the above facts, it cannot be said that the notice of assignment of claims issued by the non-party bank to the defendant is in an objective state where the defendant, who is the debtor, is able to know the contents of the notice under social norms, and thus, it cannot be said that
Furthermore, the obligor is entitled to the execution clause as a successor of a claim.