beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.07 2014나70008

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff KRW 2,053,496 as well as a year from June 11, 2013 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Although the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, at the instant appellate court, the Plaintiff did not appear on July 17, 2015 at the date of the first instance trial, and on August 28, 2015, respectively, and the Defendant was not present on the date of the second instance on August 28, 2015. The Plaintiff did not file an application for designating a date within one month from August 28, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn on October 1, 2015.

Therefore, the scope of this Court’s trial is limited to the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) who succeeded to the trial.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Byung evidence No. 1, and 2, Eul Savings Bank (hereinafter "HK Savings Bank") loaned KRW 3,000,000 to the defendant on February 14, 2012 (hereinafter "the loan claim of this case"). At the time, the defendant agreed to pay the principal and interest calculated at an interest rate of 38.9% per annum to HK Savings Bank in monthly installments for 36 months from the above loan date to February 14, 2015. However, the defendant agreed to repay only the agreed interest rate of KRW 946,504 and June 10, 2013, and notified the defendant of the transfer of the loan claim of this case on May 10, 2013, and the plaintiff continued to transfer the loan claim of this case to the defendant on May 14, 2013.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the intervenor who is the final transferee of the loan of this case the balance of the principal of the loan of this case (=3,000,000-946,504 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 38.9% per annum from June 11, 2013 to the date of full payment.

3. If so, the intervenor's claim is reasonable.