beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 7,947,00 and 4,656 among them.
Reasons
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant acquired the claim against each of the Defendant of the Daejeon Livestock Farming Cooperatives and the Seoul Central Saemaul Bank. The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the claim that the Plaintiff acquired from the Daejeon Livestock Cooperatives, and dismissed the claim on the claim that the Plaintiff acquired from the original Central Saemaul Bank.
Since the plaintiff appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claims that the plaintiff acquired from the original Central Saemaul Depository.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's claims, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, and evidence Nos. 2-2, the Central Saemaul Bank of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Saemaul Bank of Korea") granted a loan of KRW 5,00,000 per annum 17% per annum, delay compensation rate per annum, 22% per annum, and May 9, 1999 upon the expiration date of the lending period. The plaintiff acquired the above lending claim from the original Saemaul Bank of Korea on June 28, 2013 with the delegation of the authority to notify the defendant of the assignment of the assignment of the credit on or around June 23, 2014, and around that time notified the defendant of the assignment of the credit on or around June 13, 2014, the total principal and interest of the above claim is 7,947,00,000 won per annum, 106, 2014 won and damages for delay.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff, the transferee of the above claim, the total amount of KRW 7,947,00 and the principal amount of KRW 4,656,10,00, calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from January 14, 2014 to the date of full payment.
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for the acquisition of the debt from the original Saemaul Savings Depository among the plaintiff's claim in this case is justified, and it is against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions.