logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.07 2017나32359
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2011, the Business Love Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Surve Loan”) provided a loan to the Defendant with KRW 3,000,000 per annum 44% per annum, interest rate and delay damages rate, and March 28, 2014.

B. From February 11, 2012, the Defendant delayed the repayment of the principal of the above loan obligation.

C. On September 28, 2012, the Love loan transferred each of the above loans to the sleep Capital Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ylice Capital Loan”); and on February 20, 2014, the sleep Capital Loan transferred each of the above loans to the Plaintiff (the changed trade name prior to the change: the sleep Loan Co., Ltd.).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the plaintiff lawfully acquired the above loan claims, the defendant asserts that he is liable to pay the principal and delay damages of the above loan obligations to the plaintiff, as stated in the purport of the claim.

Therefore, the transfer of a nominative claim, such as health class and the above lending claim, cannot be asserted against the obligor, etc. without the obligor’s notification or the obligor’s consent (Article 450(1) of the Civil Act). According to the evidence No. 2, the fact that each transferor and the Plaintiff’s “Notice of Claim Transfer and Pledge” under the name of the Plaintiff was sent to the Defendant’s domicile on May 23, 2014, is recognized as having been sent “Seoul Jongno-gu 2 Building 1st floor.” However, insofar as it is evident that the original copy of the instant payment order prior to the submission of the instant litigation procedure was served at several times from November 18, 2016 to the above address, but it was impossible to deliver the original copy on the ground of “the addressee’s unknown address,” the statement of evidence No. 2 cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s notification of the claim by the Plaintiff was delivered to

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence 6, in the situation where the Business Love Loan does not specify the transferee and the time of transfer at the time of the loan, the defendant is given advance.

arrow