beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.05.15 2013가합33283 (1)

양수금

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s KRW 1,506,810,041 and KRW 528,30,597 among them, the Defendant shall start from June 19, 2013.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by Gap, taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4-1, 5, 1, and 2, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

On September 30, 2008, Samsung Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant on September 30, 2008 with a loan amount of KRW 1,650,000,000, and on September 30, 2009, at the highest interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 22% per annum (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and lent KRW 1,650,000 to the Defendant.

B. On June 29, 2010, the Samsung Mutual Savings Bank transferred the loan claims against the Defendant under the instant agreement to the Plaintiff, notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on the same day by content-certified mail, and around that time, the above content-certified mail reached the Defendant.

The interest rate (%) 528,300,597 978,509,444 1,506,810,0412

C. As of June 18, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant base date”), the sum of the principal and interest of loan claims under the instant agreement as indicated below is as follows.

On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the loan claims against the Defendant under the instant agreement to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on December 4, 2014 by content-certified mail, and around that time, the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant.

Judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s claim and the Plaintiff’s claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor continue to remain effective as a ordinary co-litigation, since the Plaintiff filed an application for withdrawal after the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s succeeding intervenor’s succeeding intervention but failed to withdraw without the Defendant’s consent.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s loan claim under the instant agreement was transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da16729, Jul. 9, 2004; 2002Da16729, Jul. 9, 2004).