logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.04 2017나82729
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 14, 2010, the Defendant received a loan by setting the interest rate of KRW 6 million at 38.81% per annum, delay damages rate, and on September 14, 2013, from a social loan corporation (former trade names: E&P social companies; hereinafter “A professional loan”) that took place on September 14, 201.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). After doing so, the Defendant did not pay interest from January 10, 2012.

B. On July 31, 2014, Apropy social loan transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff in sequential order on December 21, 2015.

C. As of January 18, 2017, the outstanding principal under the instant loan agreement is KRW 1,475,552, interest amount is KRW 1,589,458, and KRW 3,065,010,010.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the plaintiff lawfully acquired the claim for the loan of this case, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the principal and interest of the loan of this case 3,065,010 won and delay damages for the principal and interest of 1,475,52 won among them.

Therefore, according to the evidence No. 450(1) of the Civil Act, the assignment of a nominative claim, such as the instant loan claim, is not effective against the obligor, etc. without the obligor’s notification or the obligor’s consent (Article 450(1) of the Civil Act), and according to the evidence No. 2 and No. 6, each of the above transferor’s notification of the assignment of claims is recognized as having been sent to the Defendant as “Neongsung-gun-gun,” but according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading No. 1 of the evidence, the above address can be identified as a different address from that of the Seoul Special-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D, which is the Defendant’s domicile at the time when the Defendant applied for the loan.

arrow