logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.19 2017나86370
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. Basic facts

A. On June 15, 2010, E.N. Social Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A.S. Social Loan Co., Ltd.”) entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant on June 15, 2010, setting the lending limit of KRW 5 million, June 15, 2013, the expiration date of the contract at the lending rate of KRW 48.54% per annum, and loans KRW 3.2 million to the Defendant on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

On June 29, 2016, Apropy Social Loan Co., Ltd. transferred the claim for the instant loan to the Plaintiff.

C. From August 23, 2016, the Defendant delayed the principal of the instant loan claim, and as of August 22, 2016, the remaining principal of the loan claim is KRW 3,040,800.

The Plaintiff submitted a written notice of assignment of claims on October 20, 2017, which is the date for pleading of the first instance court of this case, and the Defendant received such notice on the same day, thereby reaching the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant loan claim, the amount of KRW 3,040,80, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 27.9% per annum, which the Plaintiff seeks, within the scope of the agreement, from August 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

In this regard, the Defendant first asserted to the effect that the Defendant repaid 3.2 million won of the loan by repaying all the interest and principal of the instant loan. However, according to the evidence No. 4, the amount the Defendant repaid was appropriated for the interest and partial principal of the loan, and the remainder of the principal of the loan was 3,040,800 as of August 22, 2016. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

Next, the defendant shall transfer the claim for the loan of this case without consultation with himself and shall be unfair, and the part payment of the apartment sold by lots shall be made.

arrow