1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. 제1심 판결의 인용 이 법원이 이 사건에 관하여 쓸 판결 이유는, 제1심 판결문 종 4쪽 8줄의 “2. 나. ⑵ ㈏ 판단“ 부분을 아래와 같이 고쳐쓰는 외에는, 제1심 판결 이유 중 해당 부분 기재와 같으므로, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

2. The requisite for setting up against the third party of the designated assignment of claims under Article 450 (2) of the Sheet Civil Code applies to the case where there is a third party who has acquired the status of the assignee as to the transferred claim during the existence of the transferred claim. Thus, when the transferred claim has already been extinguished due to repayment, etc., even if the seizure and collection order was served on the transferred claim, it shall be null and void as to the non-existent claim, and there is no room for any problem of the above requisite for setting up against the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da37426, Oct. 24, 2003). According to the evidence No. Eul or 2, the judgment of the court below that the defendant notified the obligor C of the attachment of the instant sub-mortgage as of January 7, 2014. Thus, the judgment of the court below which held that the attachment of the instant claim becomes null and void by public notice as to the obligor of the instant case as of January 222, 3, 2014.