【Holding】
[1] Party bearing the burden of proving that a condition has been fulfilled in a juristic act subject to a condition precedent (= the party seeking to acquire a right by that juristic act)
[2] Where a debtor consented to an assignment of claim without reserving any objection, but a defense assertable against the assignor arose only after the assignment, and the debtor, at the time of consenting to the assignment, was not aware of a considerable likelihood that such defense would arise, whether the debtor may assert the defense against the assignee (affirmative)
[3] In a case where A, in concluding a rental contract for a coffee machine with B company, provided that the rental contract would take effect only upon the acceptance and installation of the rental product, and consented without any objection to B company's assignment to C company of the rental fee claims B company held against A, and thereafter the issue arose whether A was obligated to pay rental fees to C company under the rental contract, the Court held that since the rental contract constitutes a juristic act subject to a condition precedent that takes effect only upon fulfillment of the condition that the rental product be accepted and installed, C company, which claims to have acquired the rental fee claims, must prove that the condition has been fulfilled, and if the rental contract is void because the rental product was not actually installed, A may assert that ground against C company, the assignee, even though A did not reserve any objection on that ground when consenting to the assignment
【Summary of Decision】
[1] Where a conditional juristic act has been made between parties, the juristic act is valid only if the condition is fulfilled, and becomes definitively void if the condition is not fulfilled. In a juristic act subject to a condition precedent, the fact that the condition has been fulfilled must be proven by the party seeking to acquire a right thereby.
[2] The purpose of Article 451(1) of the Civil Act in restricting a debtor who has consented to an assignment of claim without reserving any objection from asserting against the assignee defenses assertable against the assignor is that, where consent has been given without reservation of objection, the assignee ordinarily trusts that the assigned claim is not subject to any defense, and thus the provision gives public reliance to the fact of the debtor's "consent" in order to protect the assignee's trust and secure the safety of transactions. However, a debtor can consent to an assignment of claim while reserving an objection only where, at the time of consenting, the debtor can anticipate that a defense assertable against the assignor already exists or is likely to arise in the near future. Therefore, as long as a defense assertable against the assignor arose only after the assignment of claim and the debtor, at the time of consenting to the assignment, was not aware of a considerable likelihood that such defense would arise, the debtor may assert the defense against the assignee.
[3] In a case where A, in concluding a rental contract for a coffee machine with B company, provided that the rental contract would take effect only upon the acceptance and installation of the rental product, and consented without any objection to B company's assignment to C company of the rental fee claims B company held against A, and thereafter the issue arose whether A was obligated to pay rental fees to C company under the rental contract, the Court held as follows: ① since the rental contract constitutes a juristic act subject to a condition precedent that takes effect only upon fulfillment of the condition that "the rental product be accepted and installed," C company, which claims to have acquired the rental fee claims, must prove that the condition has been fulfilled; even if A had agreed, through a separate agreement with B company, that the rental product would be installed at another place designated by B company rather than the installation place under the contract, the rental fee claims arise only if the rental product is actually installed at that place, and therefore it must be determined whether the rental contract took effect after examining whether the rental product was actually installed at the place designated by B company; and ② meanwhile, since the installation of the rental product was scheduled at the time of consenting to the assignment of claim, the ground that the rental contract is void because the rental product was not actually installed may be evaluated as a circumstance that arose only after the consent to the assignment, and there is no basis for finding that A was aware, at the time of consenting to the assignment, of a considerable likelihood that such circumstance would arise; therefore, if the rental contract is void because the rental product was not actually installed, A may assert that ground against C company, the assignee, even though A did not reserve any objection on that ground when consenting to the assignment.
【Referenced Statutes】
[1] Article 147(1) of the Civil Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act [burden of proof] [2] Article 451(1) of the Civil Act [3] Articles 147(1) and 451(1) of the Civil Act
【Referenced Precedents】
[1] Supreme Court Decision 81DaKa692, April 12, 1983 (Gong1983, 809)
Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3319, December 7, 2006
[2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da25464, October 25, 2002
(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2026Da202594, August 12, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)
2026. 10. 14. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail