양수금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 52,479,757 as well as KRW 50,00,000 among them, from July 12, 2019 to the day of full payment.
1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment on the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Defendant received a loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) for a specified period of 12 months on February 4, 2015; the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claim from C on February 19, 2016; the Defendant notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on June 3, 2016; the principal of the loan was KRW 50,000,000 as of April 5, 2019; and interest was KRW 2,479,757.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 12, 2019 to the date of complete payment, according to the Plaintiff’s claim against KRW 50,000,000 (= KRW 50,000,000) and KRW 50,000,00,00,00, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for change of claim and the cause of claim.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant alleged to the effect that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case since he applied for credit recovery to the D organization. However, the defendant's debt is extinguished merely because the defendant applied for credit recovery.
Since it is not possible to refuse the performance of the obligation or to refuse the performance of the obligation (the obligation of the Defendant seems not to include the obligation of the instant loan in the details of the debt adjustment and repayment), the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
B. The defendant asserts to the effect that it is unfair for the plaintiff to claim the total amount of the loan and damages for delay even after purchasing the loan claim of this case at the intermittent value. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff purchased the loan claim of this case at the intermittent value, and the above circumstance alleged by the defendant does not constitute a ground to refuse the claim of this case. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so ordered as per Disposition.