beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as its annual 10% from October 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 1, 201, C, a U.S. citizen, set the due date for reimbursement of KRW 40,000,000,00 to the Defendant as 10% per annum on September 1, 201.
B. C transferred the above loan claim to the Plaintiff on June 29, 2016.
C. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) delegated all authority on the preparation and notification of the contract for the transfer of claims by C residing in the U.S. at the time; (b) prepared a claim transfer contract (Evidence 2); and (c) sent the notice of the transfer of claims to the Defendant by means of content-certified mail; and (c) returned the notice.
Meanwhile, the notice of assignment of claims submitted by documentary evidence was served on May 1, 2017, along with a duplicate of the complaint of this case, to the Defendant. On September 14, 2017, the notice was sent to the Defendant as evidence.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the result of the plaintiff's personal examination, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, as long as the notice of assignment of claims was delivered to the Defendant during the proceeding and was withdrawn from the pleading, it is reasonable to view that the notice of assignment of claims was lawfully made. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the assignee, the amount of KRW 40,000,000, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10% per annum, which is the rate of delay damages, from October 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017, the day following the due date of payment, and the day after the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.
[Dissenting this, the Defendant asserts that the authenticity of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 was reached. The issue of whether to acknowledge the authenticity of the document is based on the court’s overall purport of all evidentiary materials and the entire arguments, and thereby, based on free evaluation. The method of proving the authenticity of the document is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da40306, Dec. 9, 2005).