beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
2. The Defendant’s KRW 6,220,018 and 1,663 among the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought from the Defendant the payment of loans that the Defendant acquired from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Mutual Savings Bank”), loans that the Plaintiff acquired from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Mutual Savings Bank”), loans that the Plaintiff acquired from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, credit card use-price bonds and special bonds that the Plaintiff acquired from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, and the Plaintiff acquired from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank. The first instance court dismissed the portion of loans that the Defendant acquired from Solo
Since only the plaintiff appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the loan claims that the plaintiff acquired from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant borrowed KRW 2,100,00 from Samsung Capital Co., Ltd. on July 19, 2002. The above loan claims were finally transferred to the Plaintiff through Solomon Mutual Savings Bank on December 10, 2009, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on September 12, 2014. 2) On June 9, 2014, the principal amount of the loan unpaid as of June 9, 2014 is the principal amount of KRW 1,63,613, interest and delay damages, and KRW 6,220,018, and the agreed delay damages rate is 17% per annum.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A 1, Evidence A 2-3, Evidence A 3, Evidence A 7-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the final transferee of the loan claim the amount of KRW 6,220,018 as well as the amount of KRW 1,663,613 as the principal and interest calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from June 10, 2014 to the date of full payment.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, so it is revoked, and order the defendant to pay the above money.