2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From May 10, 2001 to 12 months from May 10, 2001, 2000 won and 20 million won were repaid to the Defendant, both the Defendant and the Defendant, with no interest. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17357, May 10, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 17470, Feb. 29, 2000>

B. Since then, the Defendant repaid 1 million won out of the above loans to Duduk Alcoholic Beverages, and on around 2007, Duduk Alcoholic Beverages transferred to the Plaintiff the remainder of 19 million won, excluding the above 1 million won out of the above loans (hereinafter “instant loans”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Determination 1 as to the cause of claim 1) The plaintiff asserts that since he received the loan claim of this case against the defendant of sub-ducu liquor, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the principal of the above loan of 19 million won and damages for delay. Accordingly, since the defendant did not receive the notification of the transfer of the loan claim of this case from sub-ducu liquor, the plaintiff could not claim the payment of the loan claim of this case from the defendant because he did not receive the notification of the transfer of the loan claim of this case. 2) The plaintiff received the loan claim of this case from sub-ducu, as seen above, the plaintiff received the transfer of the loan claim of this case from sub-ducu, and therefore, it is examined whether the defendant has the notification of the transfer of the claim of this case as to the above assignment of claim of this case. 2) The notification of the transfer of claim to the defendant is effective upon the delivery of the debtor to the obligor. The arrival of the notification is referred to as an objective condition in which the other party can know the contents of the notification under social norms.

Supreme Court Decision 198Do349 delivered on April 2, 1983