Whether the attribution of the claim (the fact that the claim has already been transferred to another person) constitutes "the grounds for setting up against the transferor" in the former part of Article 451(1) of the Civil Act.

The Civil Act stipulates that the right to the attribution of a claim shall be determined solely by the notification or acceptance by the certificate with a fixed date and by the prior notification thereof. The debtor's "approval without reservation" is only the effect of losing his defense against the transferor even if it is in itself the provision of the former part of Article 451(1) of the Civil Act, and in case where there are several persons who assert the right to the claim, the right to the claim has an effect on the obligor, and therefore, the "reasons for setting up against the transferor" in the above provision is merely the reason why the claim is established, continued, and exercised, and does not include the ownership of the claim (the fact that the claim has already been transferred to another person).

Article 451(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 92Na6783 delivered on June 2, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. (1) On February 8, 1990, Nonparty 1 leased KRW 20,00,000 from the Defendant to Nonparty 2 on a deposit amount of KRW 20,000,00, and notified the assignment of the claim with a certificate with a fixed date around that time. On February 8, 191, Nonparty 1 paid the amount increased by the above deposit amount of KRW 25,00,000 to Nonparty 3 without using the certificate with a fixed date, and the Defendant transferred all of the returned claim to Nonparty 3 without having consented to the transfer of the claim to Nonparty 4 on June 25, 191. The court below held that Nonparty 4 was not subject to attachment and assignment order for KRW 7,20,000,00 among the above bond refund claim, and the Defendant could not set up against Nonparty 2’s assignment of the claim against the Plaintiff on the ground that it was not subject to attachment order against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant could not set up against the Plaintiff’s assignment of claim against the Plaintiff.

B. Article 450(2) of the Civil Act provides that the order of the assignee of a claim and the creditor who attached the claim shall be determined only by the notification or acceptance by the certificate with the fixed date and by the prior notification. As seen above, although the consent of the above non-party 3 on the assignment of claim was prior to the seizure order of the non-party 4, the above non-party 3 cannot set up against the above non-party 4, and since it was not made by the certificate with the fixed date, the above non-party 3 cannot set up against the above non-party 4, and although the notification of the assignment of claim to the plaintiff by the above non-party 3 was made with the certificate with the fixed date, it was later later than the above seizure order, and thus the plaintiff cannot set up against the above non-party 4 (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu1087, Feb. 11, 1986 and Supreme Court Decision 85Meu794, Sept. 10, 1985).

C. On March 31, 1990, the defendant received notice from Nonparty 1 that he transferred KRW 10,00,000 of the claim of this case to Nonparty 2 as a certificate with a fixed date. On February 8, 1991, the above non-party 1 consented to the transfer of the total amount of increased claim (25,00,000) to the non-party 3 without reservation of objection. Since the plaintiff acquired KRW 20,00,00 from the above non-party 3, the plaintiff acquired the total amount of the increased claim from the above non-party 3, and the plaintiff is also deemed to include the purport that he is obliged to pay the total amount of the claim of this case to the non-party 3, and the validity thereof shall be examined.

This is related to the validity of the "approval without reservation of objection". Since the former part of Article 451(1) of the Civil Code provides that "if the debtor has given his consent under the preceding Article without reservation of objection, it shall not be set up against the assignee on the grounds that it could be set up against the transferor," it shall be based on whether the fact of attribution of the claim (the fact that the claim has already been transferred to another person) as in this case constitutes "reasons that could be set up against the transferor" under the above provision, it shall be decided only by the notification or acceptance with the certificate with a fixed date, and by the prior notification or acceptance of the certificate with a fixed date. The "approval without reservation of objection" of the debtor is only effective in the above provision, even if there are several persons who assert their rights to the claim, the heating between them shall be interpreted to include the establishment of the claim, the establishment of the claim, the continuation of the exercise of the claim, and the reversion of the claim, and it shall not include the reversion of the claim.

Therefore, the heat between the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, the transferee of the non-party 1, who is the non-party 2 and the non-party 2, is bound to make a decision according to whether the requisite for setting up against the plaintiff is satisfied and the claim assignment against the above non-party 2 was made with a certificate with a fixed date, while the claim assignment against the above non-party 3 was not fulfilled any requisite for setting up against the non-party 3. Thus, the amount that the non-party 3 can claim against the defendant is limited to 15,00,000 won after deducting the above non-party 2's transfer amount from his transfer amount. Since the claim amount of the non-party 4 is reduced to 7,80,000 won, the claim amount of the above non-party 3 is reduced to the same amount as the plaintiff's claim amount.

Nevertheless, by taking different views, the lower court erred by citing the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 7,200,000 from the Plaintiff’s claim amount of KRW 20,000,000, and citing KRW 12,80,000. However, as seen below, the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the grounds of appeal, and the erroneous conclusion of the lower court is favorable to the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the grounds for reversal of the lower judgment.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The defendant did not submit a statement of the grounds for appeal within a legitimate period and did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal. Thus, the defendant's appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)