[1] The meaning of the "date of confirmation" under Article 450 (2) of the Civil Code, and whether the mail is a document with a fixed date if it is notified of the transfer of claim by delivery-certified mail (negative)

[2] Where a separate transfer certificate obtains a fixed date regardless of the notification of the transfer of claims to the debtor, whether the transfer of claims can be asserted against a third party (negative)

[1] Article 450 (2) of the Civil Code, Article 25 (1) 4 (a) and (c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act / [2] Article 450 (2) of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2429 delivered on April 12, 198 (Gong1988, 840) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da2627 delivered on April 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1181)

Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2001Na2776 Delivered on November 9, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Based on the employed evidence, the court below found that the non-party Taeyang Electric Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party company") has a claim for the purchase price of KRW 40,98,789 against the defendant as of July 27, 199. The non-party company transferred 23,496,156 out of the above claim against the defendant ("24,496,156 won" of the judgment of the court below) to the plaintiff on July 27, 1999. The non-party company notified the defendant of a document stating the above transfer on July 28, 1999. Meanwhile, the non-party company obtained a fixed date date as of July 28, 199 with the Suwon District Court Registry No. 11759 as of July 28, 199, but the non-party company notified the defendant of the transfer price, and the non-party company did not have any violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. According to Article 450 of the Civil Act, the transfer of nominative claim is merely a notification to the obligor or a third party without the obligor’s consent (Paragraph 1), and the above notification or consent cannot be asserted against any third party other than the obligor unless it is based on the document with a fixed date (Paragraph 2). The "fixed date" is legally recognized as evidence of the date on which it is prepared, and it refers to the date on which it becomes impossible for the parties concerned to make the last change (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu2429 delivered on April 12, 198, 200Da2627 delivered on April 11, 200, etc.). The Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act only lists the delivery of the document with a fixed date as the type of extra postal service under Article 25(1) and provides that delivery [Article 25(1) of the Postal Service Act provides that the delivery and delivery of the document can only be verified by the delivery and delivery of the mail to the sender (see subparagraph 4(c).).).

Furthermore, there is an institutional basis that the requisite for setting up against the obligor under the Civil Act with regard to the assignment of claims can be indicated by the obligor to a third party by recognizing whether or not the obligor of the claim in question has issued the assignment of claims, and that such circumstance may be indicated by the obligor. Therefore, the "fixed date" in the notification or consent by a certificate with a fixed date should be made in relation to the notification or consent, which serves as the premise for the obligor's recognition. According to the above facts, it is merely merely that the non-party company received the fixed date, regardless of the notification of the assignment of claims to the Defendant, is subject to a separate transfer certificate, and it cannot be said that the non-party

The decision of the court below that the plaintiff could not oppose the third party by the assignment of claim of this case is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requisites for setting up against the assignment of claim.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)