logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.02.07 2016나33675
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 9,209,598 and KRW 2,630,199 among the Plaintiff and its KRW 2,630,199 on September 16, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Fact 1) On November 20, 2009, Tae River Loans Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant loans”) extended loans to the Defendant by setting three million won to thirty-six months of the lending period and forty-eight point nine-six percent of the loan interest rate per annum (hereinafter “instant loans”).

(2) On February 16, 201, Tae River Loans Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claims to ELC Loans, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on the same day, and on June 19, 2014, ELC Loans Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on July 18, 2014.

3) The principal and interest of the instant case, etc. are KRW 9,209,59,598 in total as of September 15, 2015 (i.e., principal KRW 2,630,558,679 in interest of KRW 6,720 in provisional payment). 【Grounds for recognition】 Voluntary Confession (No. 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and No. 150(1), and No. 1 through 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, as a result of an order to submit financial transaction information to the National Bank of Korea in the first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum, which is within the agreed rate, as sought by the Plaintiff from September 16, 2015 to the date of full payment, as to the sum of the principal and interest of this case, and KRW 9,209,598, and KRW 2,630,199, which is the principal.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, so the court of first instance revokes the plaintiff's appeal and ordered the defendant to pay the above amount, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow