The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Korea Land and Housing Corporation shall be Seoul Western District Court on March 30, 2018.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment on this part of the facts based on the judgment of the court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited “Defendant B” in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as “Codefendant B” and “Defendant B” as “B,” respectively; and (b) the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the basic facts in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception of eliminating the part of “Defendant B”

2. The judgment of the court on this part of the judgment on the ground of claim is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. Since the judgment on the cause of the claim is the same as that on the determination, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The summary of the assertion 1) The instant construction contract contains a special agreement with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation to transfer the claim for construction cost in advance to the instant construction contract, which contains a special agreement with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation to restrict the transfer of the claim, and B does not have obtained written approval from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation with respect to the instant transfer of the claim. In addition, the said special agreement is a kind of contract practice, and the Plaintiff, who was engaged in construction business for several years at the construction site of the instant construction site, could have known, or could have failed to know, the existence of the said special agreement on transfer restriction. Thus, the assignment of the claim in this case is invalid (the main text of Article 449(1) of the Civil Act). However, if the parties expressed their opposing intent, the assignment of the claim in this case cannot be asserted against a bona fide third party (the proviso to paragraph (2) of the same Article). As such, the parties expressed their dissent against the transfer (hereinafter referred to as “special agreement”).

In such case, the transfer of the bonds shall be lost.

In the event that a claim is assigned to a third party in violation of a non-assignment agreement, the assignee has a non-assignment agreement.