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.

Plaintiff’s assertion

On October 22, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 5,00,000 as of October 22, 2017, the loan rate of 34.9%, respectively, and the loan period of KRW 5,00,000, and the principal was overdue from December 22, 2015.

On March 31, 2016, Apropy social loans transferred the above loans to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the credits at that time.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff, who is the transferee of the above loan claim the balance of the loan principal 4,92,087 won and damages for delay.

Judgment

The transferor is not notified to the obligor or the obligor does not consent to the transfer of nominative claim (Article 450(1) of the Civil Act), and the transferee who fails to meet the requisite for setting up against the obligor cannot make a claim for right against the obligor as there is no legal relationship between the obligor and the obligor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da9452, 9469 Decided August 18, 1992). According to Gap 2’s statement, “a notice of credit transfer” under the name of Apropha social loan was sent to the defendant’s domicile on April 11, 2016, with “Cheongju-si B 203 Dong 1508”.

However, in the instant demand case prior to the submission of the instant legal proceedings (2016j. 409781), so long as the fact that the original copy of the payment order was not served on several occasions at the above address was obvious to this court, the above evidence alone cannot be deemed as having received the notification of the transfer of claims by the Plaintiff’s assertion to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot set up against the defendant due to the above claim acquisition, because he did not meet the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claim under Article 450 (1) of the Civil Code. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit

The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

The judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.