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 April 22, 2011, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was loaned KRW 2,50,000,000 from the original loan, 44% per annum for interest and interest on delay, and on April 22, 2016.

The defendant did not pay the principal from January 3, 2012.

On December 31, 2013, the Changishing Loan Co., Ltd. transferred the above loan claims to the sleep Capital Loan Co., Ltd., and on February 22, 2014, the sleep Capital Loan Co., Ltd. transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.

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

2. The transferor cannot set up a claim against the obligor unless the obligor does not notify the obligor of his/her intention or the obligor does not consent (Article 450(1) of the Civil Act), and the assignee who fails to meet the requisite for setting up against the obligor cannot set up a claim against the obligor as the obligor has no legal relations.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da9452, 9469 Decided August 18, 1992). According to the evidence evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the “Notice of Claim Transfer” under the Plaintiff’s joint name and the “Notice of Claim Transfer” was sent on March 20, 2014.

However, since the Defendant, on November 2, 2010, made a move-in report to the above domicile on January 6, 2014, and became ex officio and registered on January 6, 2014, and thereafter, it is recognized by the record that the move-in report was made to the “Ycheon-gu Seoul building and 401,” which is the current domicile on February 11, 2014, and it is evident in the record or based on the overall purport of pleadings, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the said notice of transfer of claims has reached the Defendant,

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot set up against the defendant due to the above claim acquisition, because it fails to meet the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claim under Article 450 (1) of the Civil Code. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without having to

3. Conclusion.