logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.05.11 2017나4116
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3. The defendant.

Reasons

1. As to the judgment of the court of first instance that was rendered on January 11, 2008 by the Defendant, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on May 31, 2017. In full view of the records and the purport of the entire pleadings in the instant case, the first instance court was conducted through service by public notice from the service of a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, and the Defendant, who received the loan claim from the Plaintiff, filed against the Defendant for the extension of the prescription period, was the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017Gau342083, the Plaintiff, who received the loan claim from the Plaintiff, was served with the Defendant on May 23, 2017. Thus, the instant appeal for subsequent completion filed within two weeks thereafter, is lawful.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7 (including the number of branch offices), the plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 8,00,000 to the defendant on December 29, 2005 at an annual interest rate of KRW 12%, a delay interest rate of KRW 22%, and a delay interest rate of KRW 8,000,000. The plaintiff transferred the above loan to the defendant on June 8, 2011. Since the above loan claims were later transferred to the defendant on December 29, 2005 through a new loan brokerage company, S standard Lone Star Asset Management loan, Switzerland Asset Management loan, benman Investment loan to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor on December 7, 2016, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the loan interest of KRW 30,000,00,000 to the defendant on December 21, 2016, the loan claims were finally transferred to the defendant on December 36, 2016, 2016.

3. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor the amount of KRW 9,233,466 (=the principal amount of KRW 8,00,000,000 up to April 2, 2007) and the amount of KRW 8,00,000,000 per annum from April 3, 2007 to the date of full payment.

arrow