양수금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. As to KRW 263,178,347 and KRW 83,647,936 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall on April 2015.
1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the bank established and lent KRW 150,000,000 to the defendant on October 7, 2002 as the due date for payment on October 7, 2003. The above bank was a limited liability company specialized in the first securitization of SBI3 Savings Bank (former Hyundai SB3 Savings Bank), the above limited liability company on May 12, 2010, transferred the above loan claim to the plaintiff on June 21, 2014, and notified each transfer of the above loan claim on April 10, 2015, the total principal and interest of the above claim amounting to KRW 263,178,347, the due date for payment on October 7, 2003, and the plaintiff applied the above calculation rate for delay to the defendant on August 17, 2004.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 263,178,347 as well as the amount of KRW 83,647,936 as the principal and KRW 17% per annum from April 11, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the above calculation base date.
2. The defendant's defense is proved to have expired by the statute of limitations. As seen earlier, it is obvious that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on April 22, 2015, which was five years after the lapse of the commercial prescription period from the lawsuit of this case. However, according to the evidence evidence evidence No. 7, the above limited company was ordered to pay the acquisition amount of the above loan by the Seoul Central District Court on May 28, 2008 and the above payment order became final and conclusive on June 20, 2008, since it can be acknowledged that the above payment order was suspended since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on April 22, 2015, which was five years after the expiration of the commercial prescription period.
Therefore, the plaintiff's counterclaim pointing this out is justified, and the defendant's counterclaim is therefore groundless.
3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted.