양수금
1. The defendant shall pay 83,196,329 won to the plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3.Paragraph 1.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 11, 2008, the Defendant concluded a contract for the sale in lots (hereinafter “instant contract for sale in lots”) with the company for construction of petitions and the company for the development of large industry and the company for the purchase of B apartment Nos. 307, 1602 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. On February 27, 2009, for the payment of the intermediate payment of the instant sales contract, the Defendant borrowed 322,080,000 won from the new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) at the interest rate of 3 months the CD circulation rate of 2.03%, 9% per annum by adding the overdue interest rate of 16% per annum to the aforesaid interest rate of delay damages, and 21% per annum.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). C.
The instant sales contract was cancelled due to the Defendant’s outstanding arrears, and the new buyer appropriated the loan of this case with the sales price paid by the new buyer, and the loan obligations remaining as of June 11, 2015 are overdue interest of KRW 83,196,329.
On the other hand, on December 24, 2013, the new bank transferred the instant loan claims to a limited liability company specialized in the C&C securitization, and on January 22, 2016, the limited liability company specialized in C&C re-transfer the said claims to the Plaintiff, and each transferor notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring the claims.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 83,196,329 won to the plaintiff as the transferee of the loan of this case.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant repaid all of the instant loans to the new bank, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above assertion is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.