logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.12.18 2015나10012
양수금
Text

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

2. The Defendant’s KRW 14,886,221 and 5,217 among the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought payment from the Gyeonggi Savings Bank, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, and Korea of community credit cooperatives to the Defendant, respectively. The court of first instance accepted only the part demanding payment of the credit transferred from the Gyeonggi Savings Bank, and dismissed the part demanding payment of the remainder of the credit transferred.

Since only the plaintiff appealed against this, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the above Solomon Mutual Savings Bank and the claim for the payment of each assignee's credit from us.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition 1) The creditor financial institutions listed below concluded a monetary loan agreement with the defendant on the date of each loan stated in the said table, and thereby made the loan to the defendant. However, the defendant did not pay the principal and interest of the loan during a transaction under the said monetary loan agreement and lost the benefit of time due to the failure to do so. The creditor financial institutions notified the defendant of each credit financial institution on July 23, 2001 that the balance of the principal and interest of the loan extended on October 17, 2001 and that 164,910 5,38,4302 of the general loan extended 3,052,2924,280,589 total sum of loans extended to the defendant on July 23, 201, and that the plaintiff notified the defendant of each credit financial institution's credit financial institution's right of assignment to the defendant on July 21, 2013, respectively.

3) As of April 13, 2014, the Plaintiff’s balance of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant (i.e., the balance of the loan principal is the same as indicated in the foregoing table. The Plaintiff’s delay damages rate of 17% per annum within the scope of the initial agreed delay damages rate between the Defendant and the said creditor financial institution.

arrow