beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On November 30, 2015, the basic fact-finding - [Defendant-Appellant] transferred the claim for the amount of KRW 4,323,000 to the Plaintiff, and sent the notice of the assignment of the claim to the Plaintiff by content-certified mail on December 2, 2015. In this case, the receiver stated “A representative in In In In In In In In In In In Mancheon, Seo-gu” as “A”.
Then, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the above amount and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit”). The Plaintiff was served with the said court on August 18, 2017 when it received a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “the instant decision of performance recommendation”) from the said court, but the said decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive around that time because it did not raise any objection within the objection period.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the grounds for objection
A. The summary of the argument that there was no notification of the assignment of claim 1) The plaintiff was not informed of the fact of the assignment of claim from the non-party company. The plaintiff did not reside in the non-party company "Ycheon-gu, Incheon-gu, where the non-party company sent the notification of the assignment of claim 2. 2) The notification of the assignment of claim 2) is a notification of the concept informing the transferor of the fact that the transferor transferred the claim to the obligor, and the notification of the concept is also applied mutatis mutandis to the notification of the legal act's representation. Thus, the notification of the assignment of claim 2 is not sufficient even if the transferor did not directly notify the transferor of the assignment of claim 20
Thus, it cannot be deemed that the provisions of Article 450 of the Civil Code are violated, and there is no ground to prohibit it otherwise.
(Supreme Court Decision 94Da19242 delivered on December 27, 1994). Even if the Plaintiff’s.