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. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition (1) The Defendant was issued a credit card from the Choung Bank, and as of October 4, 199, the Defendant still had the principal obligation of KRW 4,276,654 with respect to the credit card payment.
(2) On June 30, 2001, a limited company specializing in asset-backed securitization (hereinafter “C&C”) was transferred the above credit (hereinafter “the instant credit card payment claim”). On September 22, 2004, on October 13, 2004, the Incheon District Court filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the transfer money (2004Gau43693), and “the Defendant shall pay C&C 4,276,654 won and its payment at the rate of 19% per annum from October 5, 199 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation”). The above decision became final and conclusive on October 13, 2004.
(3) The instant credit card payment claim was subsequently transferred to C&B Investment Loan Co., Ltd., and was subsequently transferred to the Plaintiff.
(4) On August 6, 2014, before the statute of limitations has expired, the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order for the extension of the statute of limitations on August 6, 2014.
(However, as of August 5, 2014, the sum of the principal and interest of credit card payment claims in this case as of June 1, 2013 (=4,276,654 Won 21,233,789) is KRW 25,510,443 as of August 5, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 8 (including tentative number), the purport of whole pleading
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from August 6, 2014 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 25,510,443 and KRW 4,276,654 among them.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. First of all, the defendant asserted that the credit card price claim of this case was fully repaid, but it can be recognized.