[1] Whether it is necessary for the obligor to receive the notification of the assignment of claims in order to consider that the notification of the assignment of claims reaches the obligor (negative)

[2] Whether a notice of declaration of intention can be deemed to have been delivered to the other party because the mail was delivered under the Postal Service Act (negative)

[3] In a case where a notice of assignment of claims is served on a person whose identity is not clear at the debtor's partner's office, whether the notice of assignment of claims can be deemed to have been served on the debtor (negative)

[1] The notification of the assignment of claims is effective upon arrival of the obligor, and the arrival here refers to the situation in which the obligor is deemed to have been in an objective condition where the obligor can know the contents of the notification in light of social norms, so it is not necessary until the obligor has actually received it or he has been aware of the contents of the notification.

[2] The notice of the other party’s declaration of intention cannot be deemed to have been delivered to the other party whenever the mail has been delivered under the provisions of the Postal Service Act, and it cannot be deemed that the notice of the other party’s declaration of intention has been delivered to the other party, and the mail delivery cannot be presumed to have been made to have been made by the mail office recorded on the registered mail after confirming the person’s business office at the office

[3] In a case where a notice of assignment of claims is served on a person whose identity is not clear at the debtor's address or office, it cannot be recognized that the debtor was placed in an objective state where the debtor can know the contents of the notice in light of social norms.

[1] Articles 11(1) and 450 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 111(1) of the Civil Act, Articles 31 and 34 of the Postal Service Act, Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the Postal Service Act / [3] Articles 111(1) and 450 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Nu439 delivered on August 23, 1983 (Gong1983, 1414) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu233 delivered on February 14, 1984 (Gong1984, 525) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu17478 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong194, 210)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Seo Jong-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na40587 delivered on June 26, 1997

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the evidence of the court below, on March 12, 1993, the non-party 1 sent the above 90,00,00 won to the non-party 1's office for the above 9-year office for the non-party 6-on-site delivery of the above 9-year office, and the non-party 1 sent the above building to the defendant around September 1995 after the lease of the above 9-year office for the non-party 1 to the non-party 4-on-site delivery of the above 9-year office for the non-party 6-on-site delivery of the non-party 9-on-site. The non-party 1 sent the above 9-on-site delivery notice to the non-party 1 to the non-party 4-on-site delivery of the above 9-on-site office for the non-party 1 to the non-party 2's non-party 3-on-site delivery of the above 9-on-site delivery notice.

However, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above ○○○ Office was the above non-party 3's office and there is no relation with himself, and the above non-party 2 received the above mail for the following reasons.

In other words, according to the above facts, the defendant and the above non-party 3's business relationship with the above non-party 2 with the above non-party 3 were continued at the time of delivery of the above notice of assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the right, and the reason for applying for the above telephone number conversion service is to deal with the above affairs such as additional sale of the leased household units, replacement of lessee, return of lease deposit, etc. at the above ○○○○ Office. In light of the defendant's point of view, the above ○○○ Office's business affairs are deemed to be the defendant's business affairs. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above ○○○ Office's business affairs related to the lease of the above ○○○○ Store, such as the above notice of assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the right, are the defendant's business office or office of the above non-party 2 who received the above delivery of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the right.

It is interpreted that the notice of the transfer of the claim to another person is effective upon the arrival of the obligor, and that the arrival here refers to the situation in which the obligor is deemed to have been in an objective condition where the content of the notification can be known in light of social norms, so it does not require that the obligor has actually received it or that the obligor has been aware of the content of the notification (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu439, Aug. 23, 1983). However, in this case, it is difficult to see that it has reached such a situation in the following respect.

First of all, there exists a relationship between the defendant and the above non-party 3 with regard to the ○○○ Store in the above instigates, and even if the above non-party 3 performs the affairs related thereto, the above non-party 3 cannot be deemed the defendant's business office or office, which is the site and sales office in the construction site constructed separately from the above business relationship, and it cannot be deemed that the above non-party 3 is the defendant's business office or office. Furthermore, even upon examining the records, it cannot be seen that the above non-party 2 was the defendant's business office, and there is no evidence to find that the above non-party 3 was the employee who actually worked in the above business office, and even is not known.

Meanwhile, the notification of the other party’s declaration of intent cannot be deemed to have been reached to the other party whenever the mail was delivered pursuant to the provisions of the Postal Service Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu17478 delivered on November 26, 1993). Rather, the mail receiver cannot be presumed to have been presumed to have been the person’s office worker or employee under the provisions of the Postal Service Act, such as the statement of the mail carrier or the Postal Service Act.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the mail of this case was served on a person whose identity is not clear at the defendant's address or office but at the partner's office. Thus, the defendant's notice was placed in an objective condition under the social concept. Thus, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the arrival of declaration of intent, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the ground of appeal pointing this out is correct.

Therefore, the appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)