beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 144,145,837 and KRW 47,556,136, out of the above amount.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the defendant approved the basic terms and conditions of bank credit transactions, etc., and borrowed from financial institutions as indicated below, but lost profits due to overdue interest, etc. as stated in the bond list. The remainder of the loan and overdue interest that was not repaid as of June 27, 2017 were as listed in the following bond list, and the plaintiff transferred the above claim from the above financial institutions and sent the above notice of assignment of claim to his domicile at the time of the defendant's resident registration around June 23, 2014 upon delegation. The overdue interest rate set by the above financial institutions can be acknowledged as exceeding 15% per annum.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 14,145,837 won in total of the balance of the above loan principal and overdue interest, and 47,556,136 won in total of the above loan principal, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from June 28, 2017 to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As to this, the defendant alleged that he was not notified of the first assignment of the claim, and the plaintiff sent the notification of the assignment of claim to the defendant's resident registration address at the time of June 23, 2014. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted (if the defendant did not actually receive the above notification, so long as the defendant was served with the application for the payment order of this case containing the purport of the notification of the assignment of claim, the plaintiff cannot dispute the validity of the assignment of claim against the plaintiff).
In addition, the defendant asserts that the time of the occurrence of the above claim was from around 2001 to around 2002, all of the prescription period has expired due to the lapse of five years, which is the commercial prescription period.
Therefore, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 4 and 9, the Daegu District Court of September 18, 2008.