1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The basic facts

On February 5, 2008, Aproph Social Loan Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: E&P Social Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Aproph Social Loan”) concluded a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant on February 5, 2008, with the loan limit of KRW 7,000,000, the first use limit of KRW 5,000,000, interest rate of KRW 48.54% per annum, interest rate of KRW 48.54% per annum, and the maturity of February 5, 2010.

On February 5, 2008, Apropha newly extended KRW 5,000,00 to the Defendant on or around February 5, 2008 under the above loan transaction agreement, but was paid the full principal and interest around September 2008, and thereafter re- loaned KRW 5,00,000 on October 20, 208.

B. After doing so, the Defendant did not pay the principal and interest of the loan obligation under the above loan transaction agreement.

On August 31, 2012, a social loan created by Apropha transferred the above loans to the saf Capital Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yaf Capital Loan”), and on February 22, 2014, the saf capital loan transferred the above loans to the Plaintiff (the changed trade name: the saf loan corporation) on February 22, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff lawfully acquired the above loan claims as above, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal of the above loan obligations as stated in the purport of the claim and damages for delay thereof to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the transfer of a nominative claim, such as health class and the above loan, cannot be set up against the obligor, etc. without the obligor’s notification or the obligor’s consent (Article 450(1) of the Civil Act), and according to the written evidence Nos. 2 and 7, “Notice of Claim Transfer and Pledge” under the name of each transferor and the Plaintiff was sent to the Defendant’s resident registration address, and the fact that it was discarded on September 3, 2014 by the office of Bupyeong-gun, which is the Defendant’s resident registration, was not delivered and no other evidence exists to acknowledge that the assignment of claims was notified to the Defendant.