양수금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 998,299,166 and KRW 107,359,394 among them, a year from August 24, 2018 to the day of full payment.
1. On August 22, 2007, C Co., Ltd (the later change to D and E Co., Ltd.) provided loans to the Defendant at the interest rate of KRW 1,620,000,000 per annum 8.9% per annum and interest rate of delay damages rate of KRW 21% per annum.
The Defendant did not repay the above loans, and the said Company received from the Defendant a payment order with respect to the amount of KRW 1,944,369,581 in total and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 21% per annum from December 17, 2008 to the date of full payment, as to the principal amount of KRW 1,620,00,000 in total, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 21% per annum from December 17, 2008 to the date of full payment. This order was finalized on January 24, 2009.
A claim for the above loan was transferred from the above company to the Plaintiff through the F Limited Company (the trade name was changed to G Co., Ltd.) and the notice of transfer was given to each Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff who acquired the above claim the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 20.09% per annum from August 24, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the sum of the principal amount of KRW 107,359,394, interest or delay damages, KRW 890,939,772, and KRW 998,299,166, as the principal amount of the above claim, within the scope of the amount of the claim pursuant to the above payment order, as requested by the Plaintiff.
In addition, since ten years have passed since the period of extinctive prescription from the date when the above payment order became final and conclusive, the plaintiff has the interest to file the lawsuit in this case based on the same claim notwithstanding the above payment order.
B. The defendant asserts that the apartment that the defendant created the right to collateral security was sold by auction and the above claim was fully satisfied with the proceeds of sale.
However, since there is no evidence to prove that the above claim was fully repaid out of the proceeds of sale beyond the auction, the above assertion is rejected.
In addition, the defendant has completed the above auction procedure from May 18, 2010.