Whether or not the obligor may refuse the claim for the transfer of claim by the transferee on the ground of the cancellation of the contract for the transfer of claims by the transferee's breach of contract.

Article 452 (2) of the Civil Code provides that the notification of the transfer of claims shall not be withdrawn without the consent of the transferee. Thus, even if the contract of the transfer of claims between the transferor and the transferee was rescinded, and the transferor of claims notified the debtor of the withdrawal of the transfer, the obligor cannot set up against the assignee of the claim

Article 452(2) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da826 Decided August 31, 1964

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 76Da2325 Delivered on May 24, 1977

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na1583 delivered on February 3, 1978

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

1. On July 30, 1975, the judgment of the court below acknowledged that the non-party transferred the lease deposit to the plaintiff and notified the defendant of such transfer on the date on which the non-party transferred the lease deposit to the defendant. The non-party cancelled the above transfer contract on the ground of the plaintiff's default on August 5, 1975 and notified the defendant of the cancellation of the transfer contract. However, as the notification of the transfer of the transfer is invalid or cancelled, the cancellation of the transfer of the claim is merely a requisite for setting up against the debtor, and if the transfer of the claim is cancelled after the requisites for setting up the transfer are met, the claim between the parties is naturally returned to the transferor and the original status is restored: Provided, That if the transferor fails to notify the debtor of the cancellation, the transferor cannot set up against the debtor, and Article 452 (2) of the Civil Act provides that even if the contract becomes null and void from the beginning or cancelled after the transfer of the claim is cancelled, the plaintiff did not receive the plaintiff's consent to the transfer of the claim from the transferee.

2. However, prior to the judgment of the court below on May 24, 197, the Supreme Court stated in Article 452(2) of the Civil Act that the notification of the transfer of claims cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the transferee in the judgment of remand on May 24, 197, which states that the notification of the transfer of claims cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the transferee of claims. Since so long as the transferor of claims has notified the obligor of the transfer of claims, the notification shall not be withdrawn by the transferor of claims without the consent of the transferee of the claim, it is clear that the non-party, who is the transferor of claims, and the plaintiff, notified the Defendant of the withdrawal of the transfer of claims, even though

3. Furthermore, Article 452(2) of the Civil Act stipulates that “The rescission of a bond transfer contract (after meeting the requirements for setting up against assignment) shall not be unilaterally performed by the transferor, but shall not take effect if there is no notification to the obligor from the transferee,” pursuant to the law of the Gu resident, the opinion of the above judgment of remand is correct (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da826, Aug. 31, 1964).

4. Accordingly, the lower court, which received the remand of the instant case, shall be deemed to have erred in violation of Article 18 of the Court Organization Act and Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, even though it was bound by the above legal judgment based on the grounds for reversal by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)