양수금
1. The defendant shall pay 150,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from November 26, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
1. On June 19, 2013, Samsung Co., Ltd. transferred to the Plaintiff the claim KRW 150,000,000 among the goods-price claims that it has against the Defendant, and the notary public notarized by Busan Joint Law Office No. 20142, Jun. 19, 2013, and the fact that the notice of assignment was delivered to the Defendant on June 21, 2013 by giving notice of assignment to the Defendant by Samsung Co., Ltd., the fact that the notice of assignment was delivered to the Defendant on June 21, 2013 does not conflict between the parties, or that the entire purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 1-2 and No. 2 of the evidence No.
2. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion filed a claim for the payment of the acquisition amount against the defendant, and the defendant asserted that the creditor of Samsung Co., Ltd. received a provisional attachment decision against the defendant, and the defendant deposited the full repayment of the debt to Samsung Co., Ltd.
3. The determination is based on the following: (a) the obligor’s perception of the assignment of claims, i.e., the notification of the transfer with the fixed date, or the notification of the transfer with the fixed date, is to be determined by the date and time after the acceptance of the debtor, rather than by the notification or acceptance of the fixed date attached to the notification or acceptance; and (b) the foregoing legal doctrine is also the same in cases where a person who executed provisional attachment orders with respect to the same claim is determined by the assignee; (c) the notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date and the original provisional attachment order shall be determined by the method after the arrival of the garnishee (the debtor in cases of the assignment
(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da24223, Apr. 26, 1994). In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of this case, the Defendant, as a third party obligor, cannot determine the lawfulness of the transfer and takeover of claims due to the transfer of claims immediately before the payment is made. Moreover, the Defendant is a stock company between July 5, 2013 and July 10, 2013.