beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 80,269,99 and KRW 49,989,918 among them.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 60, 2003, the personal credit union (hereinafter “the personal credit union”) entered into a loan transaction agreement with Defendant A on June 30, 2006, by setting the loan terms as the full repayment on the date of expiry of the loan term, the general loan, the loan amount of KRW 50 million, the loan amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
(hereinafter “instant loan claim”). (b)
On June 21, 2013, the Indian Union transferred credit for the instant loan (49,989,918 won as of May 31, 2013) to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of credit from the Personnel Credit Union and notified the Defendant A of the assignment of credit.
C. On April 7, 2015, the balance as of April 7, 2015, which the Plaintiff acquired by transfer, is the principal amounting to KRW 49,989,918, interest amounting to KRW 30,280,081, and the overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff is 17% per annum.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including additional numbers), the first instance court and the result of the submission of financial transaction information to each training credit union of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant loan claim, the total sum of KRW 80,269,99 and KRW 49,989,918, which is the principal, to the Plaintiff, as of April 7, 2015, delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate, from April 8, 2015 to the date of full payment.
3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants made a loan transaction agreement (No. 3) on June 30, 2003 and signed and sealed it, but that the loan was not actually executed. Therefore, in full view of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted, the Personal Information and Communications Union extended a loan of KRW 50 million to the Defendant A’s account (D) on June 30, 2003.