Requirements for setting up against the cancellation of nominative claim transfer

Where a contract for the assignment of nominative claim is cancelled after the fact of transfer has been already notified to the obligor, if the transferee of the original obligation seeks to oppose the obligor with the grounds for cancellation, he shall notify the obligor of such cancellation.

Article 450 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (76 Gohap588,604 delivered on April 1, 200)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The part against the plaintiff in relation to the principal lawsuit in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 470,000 won with 25 percent interest per annum from September 11, 1974 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. In full view of the whole purport of testimony and pleadings by Non-Party 1 and evidence Nos. 1 (the notice of transfer, evidence No. 3) and 2 (the same as the evidence No. 3), and evidence No. 3 (the well-grounded notice), for which no dispute arises in the establishment, the defendant has agreed to pay 570,000 won to Non-Party 1 until August 9 of the same year and issued a custody certificate to the same effect that the defendant would pay 570,000 won to the defendant as well as 470,000 won to the defendant among the above bonds and did not receive 470,000 won from the defendant on September 10 of the same year, and the defendant did not transfer the above evidence No. 470,470,000 won among the above bonds and did not receive 470,000 won from the non-party 1 to the defendant on April 10, 197.

2. With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant as the principal lawsuit, the Defendant transferred it to Nonparty 2 and 3 on October 21, 1974 prior to the transfer of the claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff by the Nonparty, and notified the Defendant of the fact. Thus, it is alleged that the transfer of the claim again to the Plaintiff is null and void. Accordingly, the Defendant again transferred the claim to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, in full view of the purport of Nonparty 3, the lower court’s witness, and Nonparty 1’s testimony and pleading of Nonparty 1, the first instance court, and the first instance court witness, before transferring the claim against the Defendant in this case to the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1 transferred the claim to the Defendant to the same person on October 21, 1974, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the transferee of the claim in this case did not comply with the above claim and notified the Defendant of the fact that the transferee did not comply with the claim in this case, and thus, the Defendant did not accept the claim in this case from Nonparty 2 and the Defendant.

However, in case where the transfer contract of nominative claim is cancelled after the obligor has already been notified of such transfer contract, if the assignee of the original obligation intends to oppose the obligor, he shall notify the obligor of the fact of cancellation (in case of why is, the transferee of the nominative claim is in the position of the new transferor due to the cancellation of the transfer contract).

In this case, unless such notification is given, it shall be deemed that it cannot be asserted against the obligor on the ground of the reasons for cancellation. Thus, inasmuch as Nonparty 2, 3, etc., the original assignee of the claim, did not notify the obligor of the cancellation of the above transfer contract, it shall not be asserted against the Defendant on the ground of the reasons for cancellation of the original transfer contract. Thus, even if the transfer contract of the nominative claim was concluded again between Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff after the above cancellation, the Plaintiff cannot assert the acquisition of the claim against the Defendant, the obligor.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit based on the premise that the plaintiff had effective acquisition of the above claim shall be dismissed since there is no reason. Thus, the court below's judgment with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it has no reason, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)