logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.02.15 2015가단33370
양수금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from December 1, 2014 to September 22, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) lent KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant around 2014.

B. On October 30, 2014, the Defendant agreed to repay C by November 30, 2014.

C. On April 14, 2016, C transferred a loan claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan claim”) to the Plaintiff, notified the Defendant by content-certified mail, and the notification was sent to the Defendant on April 15, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment C on the defense before the merits argues that the transfer of the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff is null and void because it mainly focuses on allowing litigation. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that it is not eligible to file the instant lawsuit.

The issue of whether it is the main purpose of the assignment of claim is to conduct litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the course and method of the assignment contract, the time interval between the transfer contract and the lawsuit, the personal relationship between the transferor and the transferee, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da23412, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the evidence No. 6, the amount lent to the defendant is the money of the plaintiff, the representative director of C, and the loan claim of this case was transferred to the plaintiff later, and the circumstance leading up to the transfer of the claim of this case was obtained, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that C transferred the loan claim of this case to the plaintiff for the purpose of conducting litigation only with the evidence Nos. 5 and 10, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. The defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, C is a company and is a merchant, and when the merchant lends money to the company, interest at the statutory interest rate of 6% per annum.

arrow