손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff provided a house as security to the Defendant and received a loan of KRW 260 million on the condition that the principal and interest of each month be repaid by October 21, 204, and the interest rate is a fluctuation rate of six-month period, and the Association of D COFX applied the interest rate calculated by adding 0.9% to the financing cost index calculated by being provided with information related to the financing from the Information Provision Bank (B, E, F, G, H, I, J, enterprises, and K Bank) according to the fluctuation rate of six-month period.
(hereinafter “instant housing mortgage loan”). B.
On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive passbook loan agreement with the Defendant on April 17, 2016, with a maximum amount of 4.5 million won, and agreed to apply the interest rate of 3.5% per annum to the fluctuation rate, and the interest rate of arrears plus interest rate of 6% per annum to the rate of 15% per annum including additional interest rate.
(hereinafter “instant passbook loan”). C.
On April 18, 2016, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff to extend the due date for the instant passbook loan, and agreed to apply the interest rate of 10.036% per day to the rate of 10.036% per day.
On September 26, 2017, the Defendant transferred his claim against the Plaintiff to C Limited Liability Company, and sent the notice of assignment of claim to the Plaintiff by content-certified mail on September 27, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 (=3 through 5 of Evidence No. 1), Evidence Nos. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the passbook loan was jointly managed with the instant mortgage loan, and the ordinary credit loan is subject to the interest rate calculated by adding 1-2% to the interest rate of the mortgage loan.
In addition, the security offered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in the instant mortgage loan was sufficient to secure the instant passbook loan.
Nevertheless, the Defendant extended the time limit for the instant passbook loan, and forced the Plaintiff to pay interest rate calculated by adding 10.036% to the unfairly notified interest rate, and forced the Plaintiff to the interest rate, from April 17, 2016 to April 17, 2017.