209 Gaz. 12104 Preferred to in

○○ Kim (64 - 1)

Chicago-si

Law Firm United States et al.

Attorney 000

Doeng Co., Ltd

Boan City

Representative Director 000

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

June 18, 2009

July 9, 2009

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 31, 497, 928 won with 6% interest per annum from February 10, 2009 to February 23, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff supplied synthetic resin to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party Co., Ltd.”), and the non-party Co., Ltd manufactured and supplied the goods to the Defendant using the aforementioned synthetic resin.

B. The non-party company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff on November 0, 2008. The non-party company should pay to the plaintiff.

When the non-party company becomes aware of its payment, the non-party company transferred its claim for the purchase price of goods to the defendant. On November 00, 2008 and December 00, 2008, the plaintiff was supplied with synthetic resin to the non-party company and was not paid the total amount of KRW 46,635,407. When the non-party company's bill was in bankruptcy, the non-party company's transfer and takeover contract stating the purport of the above transfer to the defendant (hereinafter "the case").

The notice of assignment of claims, accompanied by the claim transfer contract, was sent by content-certified mail, and the above notice of assignment of claims was delivered to the defendant on the 00th of the same month.

C. On November 0, 2008, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Nonparty Company entered into a payment guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff to pay KRW 50,000,00 to the Plaintiff within the maximum limit of the credit purchase amount of Nonparty Company in the event that the assignment of claims pursuant to the instant claim transfer and takeover agreement is notified to the Plaintiff.

D. On February 00, 2009, the non-party company sent a notice of right transfer by content-certified mail to the defendant on February 00, 2009, without attaching I of the credit transfer contract stating the purport that the non-party company will transfer the goods price claim amounting to KRW 31,00,000,000 to E to be received from the defendant. The above notice of right transfer reaches the defendant on the 00th of the same month.

E. The Defendant’s payment for the goods to be paid to Nonparty Company remains 31, 535, and 328 won.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 0, 2008, the Plaintiff received the claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant by the non-party company, and notified the Defendant lawfully with the content certification on February 00, 2009, so the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the above purchase price to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion

As to this, the defendant asserts that the notification of assignment of claims should be made by the transferor to the debtor, and that the notification of assignment of claims sent by the plaintiff to the defendant is written as the sender, and it is unclear whether the document proving the agency authority is attached to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's notification of delivery of claims is invalid.

C. Determination

Therefore, it should be seen as to whether there was a valid notice of the assignment of claims in the instant claim seeking payment of the price for the goods against the Defendant by making the Plaintiff’s transfer of the claim against the Defendant from the Nonparty Company as a whole.

The notification of the assignment of claims under Article 450 of the Civil Act shall not be made directly by the transferor, but by the transferor, through a private person or by proxy, and the transferee of the claim may also be delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims as an agent. In addition, when the transferee entrusted with the authority to notify the assignment of claims on behalf of the transferor pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Civil Act gives notice of the assignment of claims on behalf of the transferor, it is necessary to indicate the transferor himself/herself and his/her agent pursuant to the provisions of Article 114(1) of the Civil Act, so even if both persons deliver the notification of the assignment of claims in the name of the transferee to the obligor without the name of his/her representative in giving the notice of the assignment of claims in writing, it shall be null and void: Provided, That the so-called name indicating that the assignment of claims is for the principal in acting on behalf of the transferor does not need to be explicitly and explicitly expressed, and even if the transferee knew or could have known that the transferee was the representative in light of various circumstances surrounding the assignment notification, it shall be deemed valid (see Supreme Court Decision 2030Da.

In this case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3-1 through 4, Eul (referring to the plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) is a certificate with a fixed date as to Byung (referring to the defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply).

Article 4 (Expenses) provides that "B shall notify the transfer," and Article 4 (Expenses) provides that "B shall perform a legal act for collecting the right at the expense of "B (referring to the non-party company)" and the non-party company entrusted the plaintiff with the authority to notify the transfer of the price claim of the goods of this case to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, on February 0, 2009, notified the non-party company of the assignment of the right of claim as an agent of the non-party company in the main sentence of the notice of the assignment of claim of this case, along with the contract of the transfer of this case."

In addition, the fact that the defendant sent the goods payment guarantee by content-certified mail to the non-party company. As such, it is reasonable to view that there is an agent's intent to assign the effect to the transferor, barring any special circumstance where the transferee entrusted with the authority to notify the assignment of the claims would originally be the quantity of the claims. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, who is the other party to the notification of the assignment of claims of this case, could have known that the plaintiff provided the notification of the assignment of claims of this case on behalf of the non-party company, in accordance with the proviso to Article 115 of the Civil Act, in full view of all the circumstances related to the notification, including the fact that "the notification of the assignment of claims of this case would be in the qualification of the non-party company as the representative of the non-party company" is attached to the notification of the assignment of claims of this case, and that the defendant could have easily confirmed the fact that the plaintiff provided the notification of the assignment of claims of this case on behalf of the non-party company.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from February 00, 2009 to February 00, 2009, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment, as the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.

Judges Shin Byung-chan