1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor KRW 1,779,697.

1. Basic facts

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) leased KRW 2,00,000 to the Defendant on March 25, 2010 at interest rate of KRW 39% per annum and due date on March 25, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b) The instant loan

The Defendant paid to D the principal of the instant loan KRW 220,303 and interest thereon until August 27, 2010.

C. D transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2011, and the Plaintiff transferred the said claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on February 22, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. On February 22, 2014, after the judgment of the court of first instance on the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff to the Intervenor is as seen earlier.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is no longer accepted because it is no longer the right holder of the instant loan claim.

3. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of claim is 1) With respect to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s claim for the acquisition amount as the transferee of the instant loan claim, the Defendant asserts that the existence of the instant loan claim and the acquisition of the instant claim did not directly dispute, but did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims. (2) The notification of the transfer of claims is given to the obligor by notifying the transferor of the fact that the transferor transferred his claim to the obligor

Here, the arrival refers to a situation in which an obligor has been placed in an objective state with which the obligor can know the content of the notification under social norms.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Meu439, Aug. 23, 1983). In addition, in a case where the assignee of an obligation withdraws the notice of assignment of the transferor’s name from the pleading of a claim for acquisition money which was raised against the obligor by means of evidence, the obligor is the content of the documentary evidence by the display of the documentary evidence under social norms.