1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 5,072,312 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from February 10, 2015 to August 25, 2016.

1. The Defendant’s judgment on the defense prior to the merits does not mean that the new Saemaul Savings Depository, the lender, was a new Saemaul Savings Depository, to the effect that the Federation of Saemaul Savings Depository transferred the claim to the Plaintiff, and that the notification of the assignment of the claim was made by the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not legally acquire the claim since the Defendant expressed his/her intent to refuse the assignment of the claim regarding the notification of the assignment of the claim, the Plaintiff, who did

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts his/her right to standing to sue is not required to be the person who actually holds the right to demand performance in order to have the standing to sue.

Since the lawsuit in this case is obvious that the performance of the lawsuit in question is not effective for the plaintiff's domestic business, it is not unlawful for the plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The head of the State, asserting that the new Saemaul Bank transferred the loans owed to the Defendant to the Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives, and that the Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives again transferred the loans to the Plaintiff, and that the Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives notified the Defendant of lawful transfer, the Plaintiff claimed the amount of money claimed against the Defendant.

In regard to this, the Defendant did not borrow money from the new Saemaul Savings Depository, and ② even if there was a borrowed date, the Plaintiff did not agree to the transfer, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendant. ③ Even if the notice of transfer only comes to the opposing power, there was no demand or peremptory notice for the claim even once from the new Saemaul Savings Depository or the Korean Federation of Saemaul Savings Depository, and thus, the above loan claim has expired by prescription, and ④ even if the claim was not extinguished by prescription, the Plaintiff’s claim from the Korean Federation of Saemaul Savings Depository.