The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received a decision to authorize a repayment plan on October 25, 2016 from the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016 Association39432; and (b) received the decision to discontinue the individual rehabilitation procedure on April 27, 2018; (c) entered the claims against the Defendant of the C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C Bank”) in the table of individual rehabilitation creditors of the said individual rehabilitation case.

B. On April 20, 2018, C Bank transferred the claim against the Defendant of C Bank to the Plaintiff, and on August 1, 2019, the Plaintiff sent a notice of assignment to the “Yan City Member D” on behalf of C Bank.

However, the above notice of assignment of claims was not served on August 2, 2019 on the ground that the address is unknown.

C. Meanwhile, on May 13, 2019, the Defendant, on the abstract of the resident registration record card, filed a move-in report with the "Gu Member D" on May 13, 201.

The copy of the complaint of this case was sent to the address, but was not served.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1 to 3, 5, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The transferor shall not be required to notify the obligor of the nominative claim, or set up against the obligor unless the obligor approves it.

(Article 450(1) of the Civil Act. However, according to the above facts, it cannot be said that the notice of assignment of claims that the Plaintiff gave to the Defendant cannot be said to have been placed in an objective state where the Defendant, the obligor, can have known the contents of the notice under the social norms, and thus, it cannot be said that

If a person who is assigned a claim intends to obtain an execution clause as a successor, he/she shall prove the fact of notification or consent to the debtor, who is a requisite for setting up against the debtor, and as long as the notification of the assignment of claim to the defendant made by the plaintiff is deemed ineffective, the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain

(See Supreme Court Order 2015Kaga173 Dated April 7, 2015). 3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.