양수금
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 86,092,416 and KRW 47,00,000 from June 18, 2010 to the day of full payment.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged in the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-1, and 2-2 of the evidence No. 1-2.
A. On August 10, 2007, Non-Party C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Non-Party C”) determined KRW 500,000,000 as interest rate of 16% per annum, interest rate of 29.9% per annum, and due date of payment of August 10, 2008 as the Defendant.
The defendant paid only interest until September 9, 2007. The non-party bank received 31,110,179 won by compulsory execution against the defendant's real estate.
B. On September 9, 2010, the Bankruptcy Administrator of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the bankrupt bank filed a lawsuit against the defendant for loans against Jeonju District Court Eup branch office 2010 grouped to 4514, and sentenced the defendant to a non-statement on September 9, 2010 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated by the ratio of 29% per annum from June 18, 2010 to the date of full payment to 468,472,870 won." The above judgment became final and conclusive on October 1, 2010.
The plaintiff was transferred from the bankruptcy administrator of the non-party bank against the defendant by the bankruptcy administrator of the non-party bank, and received a written notice of succession execution under Article 31 of the Civil Execution Act from the above court, and a certified copy of the above succession execution was served on the defendant on May 25, 2016.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 29% per annum from June 18, 2010 to the date of complete payment to KRW 86,092,416, and KRW 47,00,000 among the plaintiff's partial claims, upon the plaintiff's partial claim, to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is required to bring another lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
3. Meanwhile, the defendant alleged to the effect that he did not have an obligation to repay the above loan since he was liable to pay the above loan by deception. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument, which is contrary to the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment, and it is therefore without merit.
4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.