beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is demanding the repayment of the instant claim by asserting that the Defendant acquired the instant claim amounting to KRW 110,680,764 against the Plaintiff from the Nonghyup Cooperatives (hereinafter “the instant claim”). However, the Plaintiff did not have received the notification of the instant claim transfer, and the instant claim transfer did not meet the requisite for setting up against the assignment of designated claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation of the assignee-payment against the Defendant.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Nos. 1, 2, and 7 as a whole, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the agricultural cooperative transferred the instant claim to the Defendant on Nov. 28, 2017, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the said claim by content-certified mail; (b) however, on January 11, 2018, the said transfer of claim was not served on the Plaintiff and was returned to the post office on January 18, 2018, and was discarded on March 2, 2018.
However, the notification of the assignment of claims is that the transferor notifies the obligor of the fact that he/she transferred his/her claim to the assignee, and the notification becomes effective upon arrival of the obligor. Here, the arrival refers to the case where the other party is in an objective condition to know the content of the notification by social norms, and it does not require the other party to receive the notification or to know the content of the notification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Meu439, Aug. 23, 1983). According to the evidence No. 4 of the evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant’s employee about the repayment and reduction of the obligation from January 2018, since it is recognized that the Plaintiff had consulted with the Defendant on the repayment of the
Even if it is reasonable to view that the notice of the assignment of claim in this case was served on the plaintiff at that time and became effective.
3. The plaintiff's conclusion