Requirements for setting up against the cancellation of nominative Claim Transfer Contract

Where the transfer contract for a nominative claim is cancelled after the obligor has already been notified of such transfer contract, the person who was the assignee of the nominative claim due to the cancellation of the transfer contract has been placed in the position of a new transferor of the nominative claim, and thus, in order to oppose the obligor, the person who was the original assignee of the nominative claim shall notify the obligor of such cancellation or shall consent

Article 450 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da10 Decided April 26, 1962 (Article 450(12) of the Civil Act, Article 450(12)760 Ka7039 Ga7039 Ga219) Decided September 25, 1979 (Article 450(38) of the Civil Act, No. 621, Dec. 55, 195)

Monopoom

Ed. Ed. Ed.

Daegu District Court of First Instance (Law No. 87 Ghana8540)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,780,000 won with interest rate of 25% per annum from the day following the service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and provisional execution.

The same shall apply to the order.

On January 7, 1987, the non-party Samjin Feed Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as the "non-party company") transferred the claim for the purchase price of KRW 1,780,000 to the defendant, and notified the defendant of the transfer as a certificate with a certified fixed date on January 7, 1987, and the non-party company again transferred the above claim to the plaintiff on April 3, 1987, and notified the defendant of the transfer as a certificate with a certified fixed date on April 8, 1987. There is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the non-party company has the obligation to pay the above goods to the non-party safe and the non-party company has the obligation to pay the above goods after the agreement on the assignment of claims was cancelled. Thus, in case where the transfer of nominative claim has already been notified by the non-party company again to the plaintiff who received the assignment of the above claim, the transferee of the claim is placed in the position of a new transferor of the nominative claim. Thus, in order to oppose the obligor, the transferee of the claim must notify the obligor of the fact of the cancellation or consent of the obligor, and without the notification and consent, it cannot be asserted against the obligor for the reasons for the cancellation (see Supreme Court Decisions 62Da10, Apr. 26, 1962; 7Da1909, Sept. 25, 1979; 2007Da1909, Sept. 25, 1979).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff had effective acquisition of the above claim shall be dismissed without merit, and since the original judgment is deemed to be unfair with different conclusions, the original judgment is revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Zwon (Presiding Judge)