1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was determined on August 24, 2007 by the Defendant as of 38.81% per annum on interest rate and delay damages rate, and August 24, 2010, and borrowed 5 million won from a social loan company (formerly, E&P lending company; hereinafter “A professional loan”).

From December 23, 2011, the defendant did not pay the principal.

On December 30, 2011, a social loan created by Apropy has been transferred to a company for Apropy Capital Loans (hereinafter referred to as “ethic Capital Loans”), and on February 22, 2014, the Apropy Loan transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff in sequential order and notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer of the above claims.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as the transferee of the above loan the remaining principal amount of the loan and the delayed payment damages.

2. First of all, as to whether a social loan created by Apropha was loaned KRW 5 million to the Defendant on August 24, 2007, as long as the Plaintiff did not submit a loan transaction agreement concerning the above loan, or a document indicating the loan circumstances or methods, etc., the entries in each of subparagraphs 1 and 6 alone are insufficient to recognize the above loan facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the facts of the above loan are acknowledged, the transfer of a nominative claim such as the above loan claim cannot be asserted against the obligor, etc. unless the transferor notifies the obligor to the obligor, or the obligor does not consent to the obligor (Article 450(1) of the Civil Act), and the assignee who fails to meet the requisite for setting up against the obligor is unable to make a claim for rights against the obligor because there is no legal relationship between the obligor and the obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da9452,9469, Aug. 18, 1992). According to the evidence No. 2 of the above loan No. 2, it is recognized that the "transfer notice" under the name of the obligor and the plaintiff was sent to "Seoul Dongdaemun-gu," which is the former domicile of the defendant on May 23, 2014, while this case