logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.28 2016나26517
양수금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 10,513,886 and 4,382 among them.

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought payment from the Defendant of each credit he/she acquired from the Nonghyup Bank, the New Card, the National Card, the Card, the Card, the SBI Savings Bank, the Hab Capital, the Hab Capital, the Orion Capital, and the Bag Capital. The court of first instance accepted the claim based on the credit that the Defendant acquired from the Orion Capital, and dismissed the claim based on the credit that the Defendant acquired from the Orion Capital.

This Court's judgment is limited to the claim based on the claim asserted by the court of first instance to have taken over from the saf Capital which was rejected by the court of first instance.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As of April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff approved that he/she acquired the credit for small loans of KRW 11,078,756 (the total amount of principal KRW 4,382,951 and interest KRW 6,695,805 and KRW 11,078,756 as of April 15, 2016 (the total amount of KRW 10,513,51 and interest KRW 6,130,935 as of July 13, 2015). The fact that the rate of overdue interest prescribed by the Plaintiff’s business regulations within the scope of the delayed interest rate of the purchase claim is 17% per annum, or that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the entire purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A1 and 7 are recognized comprehensively.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,513,886 as well as the amount of KRW 4,382,951 per annum from July 14, 2015 to the date of full payment.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff is unfair in conclusion, so it is revoked and the defendant is ordered to pay the above money to the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow