양수금
1. The Defendant is 17% per annum from June 3, 2015 to the full payment date, as to KRW 15,190,894, out of KRW 53,325,713 and its money to the Plaintiff.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The facts of recognition (1) The Defendant received a credit card theory from Daegu Bank, and used Samsung Card with the credit card issued from Samsung Card.
(2) As of June 2, 2015, the Defendant’s Daegu Bank and Samsung Card’s outstanding obligations are as follows.
The card loan theory of Daegu Bank: The sum of the outstanding principal amount 7,170,629 won, unpaid interest 12,403,812 won, 19,574,441 won: the outstanding principal amount 8,020,265 won, overdue interest or delay damages 25,731,07 won, the sum of 33,751,272 won (3) the Plaintiff received each of the above claims from Daegu Bank and Samsung Card, and each of the above agencies notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.
(4) Meanwhile, the agreed damages rate of each of the above financial institutions is at least 17% per annum.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or is not an obvious dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-5 and Gap evidence, and purport of whole pleadings]
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum pursuant to the Plaintiff’s claim from June 3, 2015 to the date following the following day, for the calculation of the principal and interest outstanding in 15,190,894 out of the acquisition amount (19,574,441,33,751,272) and the principal and interest of 15,190,894 out of the money.
(2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the Daegu Bank's credit card user-price claim and installment financing claim of the LG card exist and acquired them, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there exists separate claims against the Defendant of the Daegu Bank and the LG card solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3. Thus, the Plaintiff's assertion in excess of the above recognition is without merit.
2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.