대여금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
2.(a)
The Defendant shall pay to the Intervenor succeeding the Plaintiff KRW 1,063,018 and this.
1. On October 25, 2005, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) as to the Defendant, a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, a notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice; and (b) the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice.
Therefore, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to the reason that the defendant could not be held liable because he was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence.
On December 11, 2015, the Defendant asserted that he was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was pronounced after the case was searched by the court, and filed the instant appeal on December 17, 2015, which was within 14 days thereafter, the Defendant’s appeal for the subsequent completion of the litigation is deemed to meet the requirements for subsequent supplement of the litigation.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. 1) On May 20, 200, the Defendant: (a) from the Maritime Credit Depository on May 20, 200, the credit limit of one million won under the agreement; (b) from May 24, 2000 to November 23, 200, the interest and interest interest rate of the agreement were set at 24% per annum; (c) the Maritime Credit Depository was bankrupt and was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy; and (d) on July 26, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred its claim against the above Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the Plaintiff’s successor, and notified the Defendant of the transfer thereof.
3) The principal of the instant claim is KRW 1,063,018. [The entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings based on recognition].
B. 1) According to the above facts finding as to the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff's claim is no longer a creditor because it transferred the claim of this case to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor. 2) According to the above facts finding as to the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor, the defendant calculated the ratio of 24% per annum from November 26, 2000 to the date of full payment as requested by the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor.