beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s KRW 64,426,525 and KRW 26,648,110 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 26,648,110 on December 1, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 25, 2001, the Dairi Saemaeul Community Fund (former title, “the Dong Sea Saemaul Community Fund,” regardless of whether before or after the change of name, hereinafter “Songri Saemaul Community Fund”) granted loans to the Defendant on May 25, 2001 at the interest rate of 30,000,000 won (12.5% per annum at the time of lending), 19% per annum per annum, and on May 25, 2003 on repayment date.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
On June 28, 2013, the Maritime Community Credit Depository transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims from the Maritime Community Credit Depository and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim on June 23, 2014.
C. As of December 16, 2015, the principal and interest of this case as of December 16, 2015 are KRW 26,648,110, interest or delay damages, and KRW 37,778,415, and KRW 64,426,525.
In addition, the overdue interest rate applied by the Plaintiff to the instant loan is 17% per annum.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of the loan of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the loan of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the notification of the assignment of claims was not made. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 3, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims from the Maritime Community Credit Cooperatives, the transferor, and sent the notification of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail to the Defendant’s address on June 23, 2014. Even if the above content-certified mail was not delivered to the Defendant at the time, it is obvious that the above content-certified mail was delivered to the Defendant’s spouse at the Defendant’s address on March 29, 2016 during the first instance
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
(b).