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. Basic facts

A. A social loan company (former trade name: E&P social loan company; hereinafter “Apropy social loan”) established and loaned to the Defendant a total of KRW 4,700,000,000, including KRW 3,200,000 on July 25, 2008 and KRW 1,500,000 on February 17, 2010, KRW 48.54% per annum, interest rate and delay damages rate, and July 25, 201.

B. From June 25, 2011, the Defendant delayed the repayment of the principal of the above loan obligation.

C. On January 31, 2012, Apropy social loan transferred the above loan claim to the Gas Capital Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ys Capital Loan”).

On February 20, 2014, the Bosg Capital loan comprehensively transferred all the rights and obligations on its financial business, including the above loan claims, to the Plaintiff (former trade name: Bosg Capital Loan Co., Ltd.).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact that the Apropha social loan and the Apropha Capital loan were transferred to the Defendant, and the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the principal of the above loan and damages for delay, as stated in the purport of the claim.

Therefore, the transfer of nominative claim, such as health deposit and the above loan claim, cannot be asserted against the obligor, etc. without the transferor's notification to the obligor or the obligor's consent (Article 450 (1) of the Civil Act), and according to the evidence No. 2, it is recognized that each of the above transferor and the Plaintiff's notification of credit transfer and pledge was sent on May 23, 2014 by "Gangcheon-si B and 22, which is the Defendant's domicile," but it is evident that the original copy of the payment order in this case prior to the submission of the litigation procedure in this case was delivered to several times from December 13, 2016 to the above address, but it was impossible to deliver the original copy of the payment order in this case on the ground that it is not known as the recipient's identity, solely on the record No. 2.