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. On June 30, 2015, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 10,000,000 from the Korea Slick Bank (hereinafter “Slick Bank”) (hereinafter “instant loan”).

Since then, the Defendant lost the benefit of time by failing to repay the principal and interest of the loan.

On July 21, 2017, Nonparty Bank transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.

In August 22, 2017, the principal and interest of a loan which was not collected as of August 2, 2017 are KRW 6,021,460 (i.e., principal interest at KRW 5,312,572, etc.).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant loan claim, with the agreed interest rate of KRW 6,021,460 as well as the interest rate of KRW 5,312,572.

2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant obtained a credit card loan of KRW 10,000 from the non-party bank, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of the card Nos. 1 and 4, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Even if the facts of the above loan are acknowledged, the assignment of a nominative claim, such as the instant loan claim, cannot be asserted against the obligor unless the transferor notifies the obligor to the obligor or the obligor does not consent (Article 450(1) of the Civil Act), and the assignee who did not meet the requisite for setting up against the obligor is unable to make a claim against the obligor because there is no legal relationship between the obligor and the obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da9452, 9469, Aug. 18, 1992), and according to the evidence No. 4, the notice of the assignment of a claim was sent by content-certified mail "Slsan-gun B, 3rd," which is the Defendant's former domicile on July 25, 2017, but on the other hand, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above notice of the assignment of claim reaches the Defendant, since the fact that the defendant moved into the domicile as of June 12, 2017, which was prior to the above notification of the assignment of claim.