logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.27 2013가단78684
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay 43,582,784 won to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 4, 2014 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. As to the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking the payment of a loan claim against the defendant, the defendant's wife at the time of the above loan is deemed to have provided a security, and the lawsuit of this case is an essential co-litigation and the defendant's wife should both be the defendant of the lawsuit of this case, and the lawsuit of this case raised against the defendant only is unlawful. However, the grounds alleged by the defendant alone cannot be deemed to be an essential co-litigation, the purpose of the lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed to be an essential co-litigation, the defendant's defense itself is without merit.

B. As to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's application for participation in the plaintiff's succession seeking the payment by asserting that the above loan claim against the defendant was acquired from the plaintiff, the defendant did not prove that the plaintiff succeeding intervenor satisfies the requirements for setting up against the transfer of the above loan claim and the designated transfer of claims. Thus, the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor did not have standing to sue in the lawsuit in this case. However, in the lawsuit for performance, the standing to sue in the lawsuit for performance must be proved within the scope of the claim for performance, and the existence of the right to demand performance exists. Thus

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The facts of recognition (1) on December 20, 207, the Defendant: (a) purchased B Apartment 111 Dong 502 (hereinafter “instant apartment”); and (b) on June 135, 2008, 800,000 won from the Plaintiff for the payment of intermediate payment, each of the loans (hereinafter “each of the instant loans”).

(2) On December 24, 2013, the Plaintiff, while pending the instant lawsuit, transferred each of the instant loans to a limited liability company specializing in the C&C securitization.

arrow