beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 as well as 30% per annum from January 2, 2012 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 2, 2010, the Defendant: (a) prepared and issued to Nonparty C a certificate of borrowing KRW 50 million with interest rate of KRW 3% per month; and (b) on August 1, 2010, the due date for repayment of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”); and (c) Nonparty Seosan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dadsan Construction”) guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation based on the instant certificate of borrowing against Nonparty C.
B. On January 28, 2014, C transferred a claim based on the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “transfer of claim”) and around February 6, 2014, C sent the notice of the said transfer of claim to the Defendant by means of content-certified mail and served to the Defendant on or around February 7, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 1227, Jan. 14, 2014) from January 2, 2012 to the date of full payment, which is from January 2, 2012, 201 to the date of full payment, to the Plaintiff, of the amount of KRW 50 million based on the loan certificate of this case according to the assignment of claims of this case and interest thereon.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that C would invalidate the instant loan certificate if it receives the Defendant’s certificate of loan in total of KRW 140 million, which is the sum of KRW 90 million and KRW 50 million based on the instant loan certificate from Taesan Construction. In fact, the Defendant received the said certificate of loan from Taesan Construction and delivered it to C with the Defendant with the above KRW 140 million loan certificate, thereby, the Defendant’s obligation based on the instant loan certificate was entirely extinguished.
The question of whether the assumption of an obligation is more and more exempt is the interpretation of the intention of the parties as shown in the assumption of an obligation contract.