beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant agreed to pay the credit card user fee and the fees incidental thereto by adding the overdue interest rate as determined by the Plaintiff (29.9% per annum from August 1, 2003) to the EL Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) upon receiving the credit card upon receiving an application for membership of the EL Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), instead of distinguishing EL card Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
B. The Defendant lost the benefit of time due to the delayed payment of the credit card fee for 28 months. As of March 21, 2014, the credit card use fee in arrears is the principal amount of KRW 8,098,990, interest of KRW 718,305, and fee of KRW 112,091. The sum of the amounts is KRW 8,929,386.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment on the party's assertion
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 8,929,386, and the principal amount of KRW 8,098,99, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 29.9% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from March 22, 2014 to the date of full payment, to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
B. The Defendant agreed to pay interest calculated at the interest rate of 12% per annum between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. The Defendant alleged to the effect that it is unreasonable to claim interest calculated at the interest rate of 29.9% per annum. However, the Defendant agreed to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 29.9% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff, if the Defendant is unable to pay the credit card fees on the repayment date. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.