The requisites for setting up against the debtor in cancelling the transfer of claim

Where a contract for the transfer of nominative claim is cancelled, if the transferee of the original obligation intends to oppose such obligor, he/she shall notify the obligor of the fact of cancellation, or the obligor shall consent to such cancellation.

Articles 450 and 548 of the Civil Act

62Da10 decided Apr. 26, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 7039 decided Apr. 26, 196, Supreme Court Decision 10Du219 decided Feb. 219 and Decision No. 450(6)417 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant Union

Seoul District Court of First Instance (66A982)

(1) The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The plaintiff's claim and appeal are dismissed.

(3) All costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney sought a declaration of provisional execution that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,924,600 and the amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the next day of the service to the full payment.

The defendant attorney sought a judgment as shown in the Disposition, and the plaintiff's attorney revoked the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

The defendant sought a declaration of provisional execution to the plaintiff 474,871 won and the amount at the rate of 6% per annum from March 17, 1966 to the full payment.

1. First of all, the defendant's main defense is the defendant's main defense, and the plaintiff's repayment of the debt to the third party by the non-party 1 limited partnership company is asserted as filing a claim against the defendant on behalf of the above company in lieu of the above company, but the plaintiff's repayment of the debt to the above company in combination with the above company is not the sole repayment,

However, this defense is interpreted to the effect that the plaintiff does not have the right to subrogate the above company. This is nothing more than denying the plaintiff's source of claim for objection, and therefore it constitutes the answer to the merits, and according to the statements in subparagraphs 2, 5, and 6 of Article 2 and the testimony of the witness non-party 3 and 4, the plaintiff as a general partner of the above company can recognize the fact that at least 2,924,600 won, which is the claim amount of the above company's debt, is repaid to the creditor group of the above company, as a general partner of the company, the plaintiff has the right to claim for objection on behalf of the above company. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

2. Therefore, we examine whether or not the above company's claim for damages was made by subrogation of the above company.

(1) Of the facts of the plaintiff principal, the above company is a cooperative organized by the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act by those who belong to small and medium enterprises nationwide, and the above company is one of its members. The defendant association received dividends from the Economic Planning Board of Korea on October 1963 from A.C. and allocated such dividends to its members for the import of A.C., synthetic rubber 11M/T introduction fund, 5,673 M/T introduction fund, synthetic rubber 7M/T introduction fund, 2,269 1.5 M/T introduction fund, and 433 8,375 ,000 won in total from the above company, and the defendant association does not dispute the above company's financing from the above company and did not deliver it to the above company, and the defendant association is deemed to have received from the above company's own funds from the 1601.25 1.65 1.25 1.25 2015 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.201.2

(2) However, according to the above evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and 10 without dispute over the establishment of a foreign capital association, the above provision of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 18-1, 2, 20-2, and 20 testimony of Non-party 2 as well as the witness evidence No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and non-party 10's testimony to the above company's members of the Korea Development Bank of Korea for the purpose of using non-party 1's domestic goods to be distributed to non-party 1's members of the Korea Development Bank of Korea for the purpose of using non-party 1's non-party 1's domestic goods to be distributed to the above company's members of the Korea Development Bank of Korea for the purpose of using non-party 1's domestic goods to be distributed to the above company's members of the Korea Development Bank of Korea for the purpose of using non-party 1's domestic goods imported from the company's members of the Korea Development Bank.

(3) If so, the goods that the Defendant Cooperative purchased or imported from the combustibility allocated by the Government are owned by the Defendant Cooperative. However, it is clear that the Defendant Cooperative will not be held with the obligation to deliver the goods imported in accordance with the terms of the allocation agreement with the members of the Cooperative, but with respect to the members who were unable to use foreign capital as raw materials for producing foreign capital without the production facilities, in violation of the allocation conditions of the Defendant Cooperative, the said Company is unable to operate the production facilities because it violated the allocation conditions of the Defendant Cooperative, and the said recognition is the same as the above recognition that it was impossible to use the imported goods as raw materials for producing, and therefore, the said Company shall be deemed to have no right to seek a refund of the goods imported to the Defendant Cooperative (However, it shall be possible to seek a refund of the price for the combustibility paid to the Defendant Cooperative).

(4) Furthermore, according to the whole purport of evidence Nos. 14-1 through 4 of evidence Nos. 15-1 and 16-1 of evidence Nos. 14 and 16-1 of this case, the above company may recognize the fact that it transferred the above company's rights to the creditors of the above company as of February 27, 1964 as well as the above 6-100 shares of non-indicted No. 16 of this case's non-performing 11M/T 5,673 shares, synthetic rubber 7M/T 2,269 shares, and 1.5M/T 43 shares of non-indicted No. 16 of this case's foreign capital stock exchange as of February 27, 196, and the above non-party 1's right to the above company's non-party 6 rights to the above company's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6 rights to the above company's non-indicted 1's rights to the above transfer.

As to this point, the plaintiff asserted that the transfer of right to the above creditor group was cancelled on or around May 1964. However, in order to oppose the debtor when the transfer of right was cancelled, the transferee of the claim must notify the debtor of the fact of the cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da10, Apr. 26, 1962) or give consent to the cancellation, and there is no other evidence to prove that the assignee of the claim notified the debtor to the defendant union. Thus, the above company cannot assert the cancellation of the above transfer of right against the defendant union, and the above defense is groundless.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection is without merit, and therefore, it should be dismissed. However, even though the original judgment is unfair to the extent that it partially accepted it, and the defendant's appeal has merit, so the part against the defendant in the original judgment against the defendant is revoked. The plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge)