logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.04.16 2014나9418
양수금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant: (a) from December 5, 200 to March 18, 2003, the 2,210,000 won was loaned from Samsung Capital Co., Ltd. at the rate of 25% per annum and at the rate of 29% per annum; (b) on April 30, 2003, the Samsung Capital Co., Ltd transferred all the claims related to the said loan including remaining principal and interest, to the Plaintiff; and (c) on May 31, 2003, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the said transfer; and (d) at that time, the said transfer notification was delivered to the Defendant.

3) The remaining principal and interest of the above loan claims calculated as of November 29, 2006 are KRW 912,013 in total (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 398,382 KRW 98,987 KRW 98,987 KRW 98,987 KRW 414,644 in interest from April 30, 2003 to November 29, 2006). (ii) The Defendant borrowed KRW 2,300,000 from the ELD Card Co., Ltd. on May 30, 2002. On October 18, 2002, the Defendant concluded a repayment loan agreement (loan 2,480,000 KRW per annum, interest rate of KRW 19% per annum, interest rate of KRW 25,244 in interest rate per annum, and period of exchange).

2) On August 29, 2003, EL Card Co., Ltd. transferred to the Plaintiff all the claims related to the above loan including the remaining principal and interest, etc., and notified the Defendant of the transfer on December 8, 2003. The above notice of transfer reached the Defendant around that time. 3) The remaining principal and interest of the above loan claim calculated as of November 29, 2006 are KRW 4,568,524 in total (= Principal KRW 2,343,379 in interest of KRW 316,736 in interest of KRW 316,736 from August 29, 2003 to November 29, 2006).

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 added to the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of fact-finding on the Chyp office of this court, since the seal impression affixed to each of the above documents is based on the defendant's seal impression, the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been established.

The defendant, at the time, used the defendant's seal imprint B by the co-defendant in the first instance trial, which was the defendant's wife.

arrow