If the claims under the Cheongbu Contract are to be transferred before the due date

The rights and obligations of the administrative agency contract are effective as long as the administrative agency contract is effective, and the claims can be transferred even before the due date.

Article 633 of the former Civil Code

Plaintiff

The Rice Repair Association

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (4291 Civil Joint77)

This case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff (appellant)'s attorney shall revoke the original judgment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to 500,000 dollars and an amount equivalent to 5% per annum from June 6, 291 to the full payment system. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials, and the defendant (appellant)'s attorney shall seek a judgment in the place of the order.

The Plaintiff’s de facto statement is a cause of claim that is the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 520,000 against Nonparty 1, but the Nonparty transferred to Nonparty 2 the short-term claim amounting to KRW 520,000 out of the amount executed for the completed portion of the repair association construction work to be paid by the Defendant on May 19, 2291, and notified the Defendant of this fact on May 20, 291, and the Plaintiff did not comply with the Defendant’s demand for reimbursement of the amount of the transferred claim, so even if the Defendant made a special agreement on the prohibition of assignment of claim between Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1, the said special agreement cannot be set up against the Plaintiff, a bona fide third party, even if it was concluded between Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1, even if it did not deny the claim amount of the transferred claim, and thus, it cannot be said that the transfer of the claim amount to Nonparty 1 would not be denied before the completion of the said contract.

As evidence, the plaintiff's attorney submitted the evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the evidence Nos. 4-1, 4-2 and 5-1, 4-5, and invoked the testimony of non-party Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and recognized the establishment of the evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 3-2, and 4, but used the evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3-1, 3-2 as the plaintiff's interest, and the defendant's attorney submitted the evidence Nos. 1-2, 3-2, 3-1, 2, and 4-2, and 3-1, 4 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, and 5 of the court below's witness Nos. 1 through 4, and acknowledged the establishment of the evidence No. 5.

Comprehensively taking account of Non-Party 1’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and Non-Party 1’s testimony of Non-Party 1 as witness Nos. 3-2, the non-party 1 was ordered to transfer 49,100,000 money to the Repair Association Corporation for a short-term period of January 16, 290, and the non-party 1 transferred 520,000 money out of the construction cost to be received by the non-party 1 during the construction work to the plaintiff on May 19, 4291, and the defendant was notified of the transfer of the claim Nos. 1 on May 25, 200. Although the non-party 1 did not have any obligation to the non-party 1, the non-party 1 could not claim that the non-party 1 was transferred to the Corporation with the non-party 1’s good faith agreement, which is the non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s transfer of claim.

The defendant asserts that the non-party 1 transferred all the claims to the non-party 2 prior to the transfer of this case to the plaintiff. The non-party 1's general testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony of the non-party 1-2 pursuant to the non-party 1-2-2 of the evidence No. 1-23 and the non-party 1 cannot be deemed to have transferred the claims to the non-party 2 prior to the completion of the construction work's assignment of claims to the non-party 2 prior to the completion of the construction work's assignment of claims to the non-party 2 before the completion of the construction work's assignment of claims to the non-party 1, the non-party 1 cannot be deemed to have transferred the claims to the non-party 2 before the completion of the construction work's assignment of claims to the non-party 2 before the completion of the construction work's assignment of claims to the non-party 1. The plaintiff's assignment of claims to the non-party 2 cannot be viewed before the assignment of claims to the Corporation.

It is reasonable to accept the plaintiff's main claim, and as a result, the original judgment is reasonable, so it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yu Jae-gu (Presiding Judge)

[Omission]

Judges Kim Byung-su is unable to sign and seal due to the surrounding area.