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.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff is not significantly different from that of the plaintiff alleged in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is re-examineed, the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the claim in this case was duly and effectively transferred and that it

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts used or added as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or added parts] Each of the three acts of 9 pages 4 in the judgment of the court of first instance, 21 pages 6, 7, 27 pages 2, and 18-3 in each of the 31 pages 18-3 in each of the 31 pages 4 pages 4 in the judgment of first instance.

On the 21st of the first instance judgment, the imposition disposition of each liquidation amount is "the imposition of each liquidation amount" of the 8th of the first instance judgment.

The following shall be added to 7 pages 26 of the judgment of the first instance.

The Plaintiff asserts that, since the time when the head of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City was entitled to file a claim for the instant claim against the Defendant on or after February 26, 2014, the assignment of the claim with the House Savings Bank on July 8, 2010, prior to the Plaintiff holding the instant claim, is null and void as the transfer of the non-existent claim, and even if it is deemed that the said assignment of claim is likely to occur in the future, it constitutes an act of disposal by an unentitled person and thus, is null and void.

However, as seen earlier, whether a cooperative is commissioned to collect from the head of the competent Si/Gun is related to the possibility of filing a claim for the settlement money, and it is irrelevant to the occurrence and reversion of the collected settlement money claim, so the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.