beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 32,802,885 and KRW 31,302,100 among them, from September 9, 2017 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 3, 2016, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with Hyundai Social Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) to obtain a loan of KRW 49,00,000 on the following terms:
1) Application of the loan term of 36 months, 2.0% per annum, 9.9% per annum, 3) repayment of the principal and interest per month of repayment method, 4) overdue interest rate of 25% per annum, 5) basic credit transaction terms and conditions, 5 Hyundai Mackers' social purchase terms and conditions, etc.
B. The Defendant lost the benefit of time on May 15, 2017, as stipulated in the terms and conditions, which was impossible to pay the installment in time.
C. Around May 4, 2017, Nonparty Company transferred to the Plaintiff the above loan claims against the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on the August of the same month.
The Defendant’s debt of the loan remains 31,302,100 won with the principal of the loan, and damages for delay incurred until September 8, 2017 are 1,50,785 won.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 32,802,885 won (31,302,100 won) and 31,302,100 won among them at the rate of 25% per annum pursuant to the agreement from September 9, 2017 to the date of full payment.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant heard only the phrase that the Defendant’s children receive a loan in the name of the Defendant, and did not read the contents of the loan contract, and did not directly affix the seal to the contract, but did not directly affix the seal to the contract. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and the Defendant had a third party affix the seal to the loan contract without properly reading it.
Even if such circumstance alone, it is recognized that the above recognition was followed and the loan contract was not concluded between the defendant and the non-party company.