logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.12.01 2014나11684
신용카드이용대금
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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a credit card company under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act with the purpose of issuing, selling and managing credit cards, etc.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement with a credit card member on March 28, 2012, and the Plaintiff issued a credit card (member number B: hereinafter “instant credit card”) to the Defendant on the same day in accordance with the agreement, and thereafter, the Defendant purchased goods and services on credit or used the instant credit card by means of cash service, credit card loan, etc.

C. As of March 12, 2014, the Defendant delayed the payment of the credit card payment amounting to KRW 11,847,516 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 11,615,315,315, and KRW 205,480, and KRW 26,721). The overdue interest rate stipulated in the said agreement is 29.9% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (the defendant asserts that the defendant's signature of Gap evidence No. 1 (the defendant's application for membership membership) was forged, but it can be acknowledged that the petition has been made in accordance with the purport of the whole pleadings). The purport of the whole pleadings is

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,847,516 and the principal amount of KRW 11,615,315, which is the following day of the above base date, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 29.9% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from March 13, 2014 to the date of full payment.

3. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that since other person obtained the credit card of this case by stealing the name of the defendant, the defendant has no obligation to pay the use price.

In full view of the entries and the purport of Gap evidence No. 1, the address and mobile phone number stated in the application for membership registration (Evidence No. 1) correspond to the defendant's present address and mobile phone number, and the delivery officer delivered the credit card of this case to the defendant on March 28, 2012, while delivering the credit card of this case to the defendant.

arrow