beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 8, 2014, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the interest rate of KRW 3,00,000,000 at 38.81% per annum and the due date of repayment on January 8, 2017 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant received KRW 3,00,000 on the same day.
B. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the instant loan from the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. and sent the claim assignment to the Defendant by a content certification around June 10, 2014, and the said content certification was served to the Defendant around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (the defendant asserted that the signature stated in Gap evidence No. 1 is not his/her own signature, but was authorized to enter into a loan under the name of the defendant to loan the loaner as stated in the defendant's argument, and therefore the authenticity of the above document is recognized), Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 4, and Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination as to the cause of claim and the defendant's assertion
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 38.81% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate, from February 8, 2014 to the date of full payment, from the date following the date when the Plaintiff was paid interest on the loans of this case and the interest thereon.
B. The defendant's assertion and judgment were based on the issuance of the passbook and the card, and then requested the loan to the loan hub, and the loan broker received a total of KRW 3,000,000,000 from C and E companies, and then withdrawn KRW 4,000,000 in the name of the defendant, and then granted the defendant the balance of KRW 2,00,000,000, and used it. The defendant did not have any obligation to repay the loan of this case.
However, even if the defendant's assertion is based on the defendant's assertion, the defendant granted the loan to the loaner in the name of the defendant.
As such, this case is concluded in the name of the defendant by a loan bromoer.