1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was determined on May 9, 2008 by the Defendant as 38.81% per annum, and on May 9, 201, the repayment period was 2750,000 won from the Social Loan Co., Ltd. (formerly changed E&P lending; hereinafter “Apropy Social Loan”).

From December 23, 2011, the defendant did not pay the principal.

On May 31, 2012, Apropy social loan transferred the above loan claims to the slice Capital Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ylice Capital Loan”) and notified the Defendant of the above assignment of claims. On February 22, 2014, Plice Capital loan transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff (Slice Loan Co., Ltd.) and the Plaintiff and slice Capital loan notified the Defendant of each of the above assignment of claims.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the assignee of the above loan claim, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining principal amount of the loan 469,673 won and damages for delay.

2. The transferor cannot set up against the obligor unless the obligor has notified the obligor of the nominative claim or the obligor has consented thereto.

(1) Article 450(1) of the Civil Act provides, “A” Nos. 2 and 6, respectively, that is, the fact that a notice of credit transfer and pledge was sent to the Defendant’s domicile on March 20, 2014, which is the Defendant’s domicile. On the other hand, the fact that the original copy of the payment order was sent to the Defendant’s domicile on several occasions from October 17, 2016 in the demand procedure prior to the submission of the instant litigation procedure is apparent in the record, but it was impossible to deliver the original copy of the payment order on the grounds that the said notice of credit transfer was served to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot set up against the defendant due to the above assignment of claims, because it did not meet the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims under Article 450 (1) of the Civil Code.