In a case where there is a double assignment of claim, only the assignee who has notified by the certificate with a fixed date shall be the legitimate obligee by the transfer of claim, and the obligor has the obligation to pay the debt only to the above obligee, and as a result, there is no obligation to pay the debt to the assignee in the assignment of claim with the consent of the obligor, which is not based on the

In a case where there is a double assignment of claim, only the assignee who has notified by the certificate with a fixed date shall be the legitimate obligee by the transfer of claim, and the obligor has the obligation to pay the debt only to the above obligee, and as a result, there is no obligation to pay the debt to the assignee in the assignment of claim with the consent of the obligor, which is not based on the

Article 450(1) of the Civil Act; Article 450(2) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na1686 delivered on November 24, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 71Na1686 delivered on November 24, 197

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in determining the defendant's defense, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant transferred the claim of this case amounting to 2,00,000 won in the order of the non-party priority separately to the non-party 1, and the defendant received the notification thereof, and the non-party 1 received the claim pressure rate and the whole order from the above two parties, and the non-party 1 filed a lawsuit against the defendant, and the non-party 1 filed a lawsuit against the defendant, and the above non-party 2 filed a lawsuit against the non-party 1 and paid the above deposit to the non-party 2,00,000 won in the order of the non-party 2,00,000 won in the order of the court below.

However, according to the provisions of Article 450 (1) of the Civil Act, if the obligor has consented to the transfer of nominative claim, the assignee of such claim may oppose the transfer of claim to the obligor or any third party. However, according to the provisions of Article 450 (2) of the above Act, the notification or consent of the transfer of claim cannot be set up against the third party other than the obligor unless it is based on the above certificate with a fixed date date. The assignee of the claim with the notification or consent of the transfer of claim cannot set up against the assignee of the claim with the certificate with the fixed date, unless it is based on the above certificate with the fixed date, and even if the obligor has consented to the transfer of claim, it is not based on the above certificate with the fixed date (the assignment of claim under subparagraph 1). If the obligor has notified the above document with the fixed date of the assignment of claim under the above 2, it shall be viewed that the assignment of claim under the above 2 has a duty of defense to the obligee without the consent of the obligor, and therefore, it shall be viewed that the obligor has no obligation to set up the above fixed date of the transfer of claim.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court