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 January 28, 2008, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3,400,000 as of January 28, 201, the loan interest rate and delay damages rate, respectively, from a social loan corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Apropy social loan"), and received KRW 37.1% as of January 28, 201, and delayed repayment of principal from December 23, 201.

On June 29, 2012, a social loan created by Apropha transferred the instant loan claim to the Gag Capital Loan Co., Ltd., and on February 22, 2014, the Gag Capital Loan Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff in sequential order, and notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring the claim at that time.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, a transferee of the above loan claim the principal and interest of KRW 8,162,749 and delay damages for KRW 3,106,181 in the balance of principal.

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 each of the Gap 2, 3, and 6's statements, the "written notice of credit transfer" in the name of "AWP", a trade name prior to the change of a social loan AWP created by APP, was sent to the defendant's domicile on July 10, 2012 as "Seoul Gangnam-gu 303," but the defendant is obvious in the record that the fact that the defendant already transferred the plaintiff's assertion to "Seoul Seocho-gu, Seoul" on March 12, 2012 is apparent, and the above evidence cannot be deemed as having received the notification of the transfer of the plaintiff's claim to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

On the other hand, according to Gap's statement, it can be acknowledged that the social loan created by Apropy has received prior written consent from the defendant on the transfer of the above loan in the situation where the transferee and the transfer time are not specified at the time of the above loan, but the transfer of the credit is transferred.