logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2014.12.19 2014가단50946
양수금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 50,279,119 as well as KRW 22,546,506 among them, from February 27, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant received a loan from a creditor financial institution as indicated below.

Section 14,414,957 won 14,074,489 won 2 foreign exchange bank credit card 8,13,658,549 won, totaling KRW 22,546,506 won 27,732,613 won, and the Defendant lost the benefit of time due to the Defendant’s failure to repay the principal and interest of the loan, and on February 26, 2014, the obligation details as listed below are as follows.

B. On June 28, 2013, the above financial institutions transferred all of the claims held against the Defendants to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff received delegation from the above creditor financial institutions with the authority of notification of transfer and notified the Defendant of the assignment, and the above notification of transfer reached the Defendant at that time.

C. The rate of damages for delay determined by the Plaintiff is 17% per annum from the day immediately following the fixed date of assets of each claim to the day of full payment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 50,279,119 (=22,546,506 KRW 27,732,613) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate, from February 27, 2014 to the date of full payment, to the date of full payment of the principal amount (22,546,506 KRW 27,732,613).

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s assertion 1) asserted that the Defendant paid all the loans against Samsung Card, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the above assertion is rejected. 2) The Defendant’s defense of expiration of the extinctive prescription period has already expired due to the lapse of the five-year commercial prescription period prior to the instant lawsuit (application for payment order).

According to Gap evidence No. 6, the defendant's claim related to Samsung Card-related claims on May 2009.

arrow