1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1, 3,00,00 won as of October 26, 1982, 300 won as of 1.25 of the same year, and 3,000 won as of 11.1 of the same year, and 30,000 won as of 30,000 won as of 10,000 won as of 30,000 won as of 10,000 won as of 10,000 won as of 10,000 won as of 30,000 won as of 9,000 won as of 10,000 won as of 30,000 won as of 9,000 won as of 10,000 won as of 30,000 won as of 19,000 won as of 10,000 won as of 9,000 won as to 10,00.3,000 won as to 30.1.

2. In full view of the record, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s instant claim against the Defendant is clearly based on what is the Plaintiff’s claim.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was entitled to 10,50,00 won on January 13, 1992 between the plaintiff and the defendant on the premise that all of the loans of this case against the defendant 1 were transferred to 30,000 won, and recognized 10,000 won as the title to the claim of this case. However, according to the complaint on November 1, 1982, the plaintiff was entitled to 3,00,000 won on the last day of January 1, 1983 and 300 won on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to 10,000 won on the above 10,00 won on the 10,000 won on the 10,000 won on the 10,000 won on the 10,000 won on the 30,000 won on the 10,000 won on the 10,000 won on the 10,000 won on the 10,03,0106.

Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that a promissory note was issued and delivered KRW 10,500,000 as of January 13, 1992 by the Defendant was paid KRW 4,50,000 among them, and that a promissory note was issued and delivered again as of KRW 4,50,000, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the promissory note was issued and delivered again as of KRW 4,500-1,2-2 of the evidence No. 4-1, and the lower court may not be deemed as the ground for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff received the principal and interest of the loan of this case. However, it cannot be interpreted as the assertion that the Plaintiff received the principal and interest of the loan of this case solely on the

Therefore, the court below should have clarified the purport of the transfer of the claim of this case by clarifying the purport of the transfer of the claim of this case when the plaintiff was delegated with the right or was delegated with the right to collect the claim of this case or if the claim was transferred with the right to collect the claim, and then should have deliberated on the propriety of the claim of this case by the plaintiff. However, without doing so, the plaintiff's claim was accepted by recognizing the transfer of the entire claim of the loan of this case as a result of an incomplete hearing due to a lack of right to explanation, or a violation of the principle of pleading and pleading by judging the fact that the plaintiff was not claimed by the parties. The argument

3. In addition, even if the plaintiff understood that the purport of the plaintiff's assertion was transferred the principal and interest of the loan of this case by Nonparty 1, it is difficult to accept the fact-finding of the court below.

According to the testimony of Nonparty 1 of the court below, it is doubtful whether Nonparty 1 can be deemed to have transferred the claim beyond the scope of delegation of the right to collect a notarized bill, and even if this is considered to have been transferred the claim, it is difficult to view that the object of the assignment of claim is KRW 6,00,000,000, which is the total amount on the notarized bill, as the object of the assignment of claim is KRW 6,000,000, which is the total amount on the notarized bill. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 3, it is difficult to view that the object of the assignment of claim is a sum of the principal and interest on the loan of this case.

In addition, although the court below decided that the defendant accepted the transfer of the principal and interest of the loan of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge it on the record, and according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff received the principal and interest of the loan of this case from the defendant, and the plaintiff is subrogated to, or received by proxy, the non-party 1 as the creditor because the plaintiff received the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan of this case from the defendant. In light of the description, it is reasonable to regard the defendant as the plaintiff with the power of attorney of non-party 1 as having the right to receive the principal and interest of the loan of this case and it is difficult to recognize that the defendant consented to the transfer

In the end, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the judgment, and there is a reason to point this out.

4. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)