beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought from the Defendant the payment of each credit that the Plaintiff acquired from Hyundai Capital, Culture Capital, Dog Capital, Nos. Dog Capital, and Dognam Livestock Co., Ltd., and the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim as to the credit that the Plaintiff acquired from Hyundai Capital and Doggn Capital, and the claim as to the credit that the Plaintiff acquired from Hyundai Capital and No. Dognam Livestock Co., Ltd. was dismissed.
In this regard, the plaintiff only appealed against the modern capital part, which is subject to the judgment of this court, is limited to the claim against the claims that the plaintiff acquired from the modern capital part.
2. Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the defendant joined as a member of the Hyundai Card on July 27, 2010, and purchased goods or services or obtained credit loans using the above credit card, and Hyundai Card transferred its claim against the defendant on June 21, 2013. The plaintiff notified the defendant of the transfer of the above claim on June 23, 2014 upon delegation of authority from the above company. As of November 13, 2014, the balance of the above claim is KRW 565,610, interest KRW 394,914,914, total amount of KRW 960,524, and according to the Plaintiff’s Credit Counseling Fund Management Regulations, which is the Plaintiff’s business regulations, the Plaintiff’s credit recovery fund management rules, the fact that the Plaintiff is obliged to apply 17% per annum of the agreed interest rate within the limit of the original agreed interest rate.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 960,524 and the principal amount of KRW 565,610, which is the day following the above calculation base date, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 17% per annum for delay calculated from November 14, 2014 to the day of full payment.
3. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's claim for the above money is justified, and it is so decided by the court of first instance.