beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.16 2015나61438

양수금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 9,679,736 and KRW 3,731,347 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 3,731,347 on May 15, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 제1채권 1) 에이앤피파이넨셜대부 주식회사는 2010. 3. 12. 피고에게 대출한도액 4,900,000원, 최초이용액 2,000,000원, 이자 및 지연이자 연 48.54%로 정하여 금원을 대여하였다(이하 ‘제1채권’이라 한다

). 2) 에이앤피파이넨셜대부 주식회사는 제1채권을 예스캐피탈 주식회사에게 양도한 후 피고에게 그 양도 사실을 통지하였다.

3) Tosg Capital Co., Ltd. transferred the claim No. 1 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer with the delegation from the Bosg Capital Co., Ltd. (4) As of May 14, 2015, the principal amount was KRW 1,851,080, and the interest and interest interest in arrears was KRW 2,801,919.

B. Claim 2 1) An Industrial Complex Loan Co., Ltd., on March 15, 2010, lent KRW 2,000,000 to the Defendant on a fixed basis as 48.545% per annum for interest and interest on delay (hereinafter “ Claim 2”).

2) The Defendant notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim No. 2 to the KNF loan Co., Ltd.

3) A case loan company transferred its claim No. 2 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer with delegation from A case loan company. 4) As of May 14, 2015, the principal amount of KRW 1,880,267 as of May 14, 2015, and the interest and interest interest interest amount of KRW 3,146,470 are KRW 3,146,470.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from May 15, 2015 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, with respect to the total sum of KRW 9,679,736 ( KRW 1,851,080, KRW 2,801,919, KRW 1,880, KRW 267, KRW 3146,47) and the principal amount of KRW 3,731,347 ( KRW 1,851,080, KRW 1,880,267).

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair.