(b) Where the creditor who is notified of the assignment of claims sent to the debtor promptly retrieves it, whether the notification of assignment of claims has arrived at;

B. If a creditor, who is a notification person residing in one house immediately after the debtor's receipt, immediately retrieves the mail, barring special circumstances such as the government's knowledge that the contents of the mail were known, the notification of the transfer of the mail cannot be deemed to have been in an objective condition where the debtor is aware of the contents of the notice. Thus, the notification cannot be deemed to have been delivered to the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1 transferred 2 million won of the agreed deposit deposit which was returned from the defendant on December 1, 1981 to the plaintiff, and requested the plaintiff to send the notice to the defendant on the same day (Evidence A 2-1). Upon the plaintiff's request, the non-party 2 sent the above notice to the defendant by content-certified mail and then sent it to the defendant on the next day, 12.2, the defendant's non-party 2, who was living together with the defendant at the defendant's office, to receive it from the defendant's delivery book at the defendant's office, and affixed the non-party 3's seal to the defendant's delivery book to the defendant's delivery book. Even if the non-party 2 received the notice from the plaintiff's delivery book and affixed the seal to the delivery book, the non-party 1, the non-party 2 living together with the defendant's allegation that the transfer of the claim was not effective, and thus, it cannot be seen that the other party's allegation that the defendant's notice was not present.

I think, it is interpreted that the transferor notifies the obligor of the fact that he/she transferred his/her claim to the assignee and that the notification takes effect upon arrival of the obligor, and that it refers to the situation where the obligor is acknowledged to have known of the content of the notification at the time of original adjudication, according to social norms, it does not require the obligor to receive the notification at the time of original adjudication or to have known of the content of the notification at the time of original adjudication. However, as alleged by the Defendant, if Nonparty 1, the notification of the assignment of claim at the time of original adjudication, who is the Defendant’s government, immediately after the receipt by Nonparty 2, who is the notification of the assignment of claim at the time of original adjudication, was aware of what constitutes the content of the notification at the time of original adjudication, it cannot be viewed that the notification at the time of original adjudication did not contain any error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the notification of the assignment of claim at the time of original adjudication, and thus, it cannot be viewed that Nonparty 2 did not know the content of the notification at the time of original adjudication.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)