logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.06.16 2019나4448
양수금
Text

The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this part of the facts are as follows: (a) except for the addition of “the instant assignment of claims” to the second 18th page of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the instant assignment of claims”) to “the instant assignment of claims”; and (b) the same is cited by the main sentence of Article 420

2. The grounds for this part of the claim by the parties are stated are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. Determination

A. The validity of the assignment of claims is reasonable, barring any special circumstance, in a case where the mail proving the contents of the assignment of claims is not sent and otherwise returned, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 2000). The notification of the assignment of claims is effective upon the delivery of the notification to the obligor by the obligor. It refers to the situation where the obligor is deemed to have been in an objective condition where the obligor is aware of the contents of the notification in light of social norms, and it is not necessary for the obligor to have actually received the notification or to have known the contents of the notification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Meu439, Aug. 23, 1983). Accordingly, the notification of the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and E was concluded prior to the conclusion of the instant assignment of claims between the Defendant and the Defendant in the Defendant’s corporate register at his domicile.

Even if the Defendant did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims as alleged by the Defendant, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff consented to the assignment of claims by paying part of the debt on May 12, 2016.

B. According to the evidence No. 1 of the scope of the transferred claim No. 1, the instant transfer contract.

arrow