logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.23 2015나56498
양수금
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. On July 5, 2001, the Defendant subscribed as a credit card member of Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Card”) and delayed the payment of the card price (including card theory) even after having been issued with Samsung Card and used it.

(hereinafter “instant credit card payment claim”). (b)

Accordingly, on March 8, 2003, Samsung Card filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order for the instant credit card payment under Daegu District Court racing support 2003j1366. On March 10, 2003, the said court ordered the Defendant to pay the amount of KRW 12,354,026 to Samsung Card and KRW 11,832,540 to the 11,832,540 to the 11,832,540 to the 24% interest per annum from February 11, 2003 to the day of full payment, and the said payment order was served on April 24, 2013 to the Defendant and became final and conclusive on May 10, 2003 because the Defendant did not file an objection within two weeks.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). C.

On July 31, 2003, Samsung Card transferred the credit card payment claim of this case to Astre-backed Specialized Company (hereinafter “Astre-backed Specialized Company”), and Astre- obligated the Defendant on September 5, 2003. On March 31, 2008, Astre- obligated changed its trade name to a “Bre-backed Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd.” (after the change to a “Bre-backed Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd.”), and on May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy, and the Plaintiff transferred the credit card payment claim of this case to the Defendant on May 6, 2008.

As of March 12, 2015, the principal of the credit card price claim in this case remains in KRW 11,832,540, and in the meantime, the interest or overdue interest occurred in KRW 33,976,212.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s interruption of the extinctive prescription of the credit card payment claim of this case becomes ten years since the payment order of this case became final and conclusive.

arrow