logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.12.22 2016나33770
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 22,775,665 and KRW 4,755,056 among the Defendants.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 2003, Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Card”) loaned KRW 7,00,000 to Defendant A at the loan rate of KRW 36 months, interest rate of KRW 19% per annum, interest rate of KRW 24% per annum (hereinafter “instant claim”), Defendant B, and C guaranteed Defendant A’s obligations for loans to Defendant A’s Hyundai Card.

B. On June 20, 2003, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Mutual Savings Bank”) transferred the instant claim from Hyundai Card, and at that time, Hyundai Card notified Defendant A of its transfer. The Plaintiff transferred the said claim again from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank on April 26, 201, and the Solomon Mutual Savings Bank notified Defendant A of its transfer around that time.

C. As of September 3, 2015, the principal amount of the instant claim as of September 3, 2015 is KRW 4,755,056; interest and delay damages are KRW 18,020,609; and KRW 22,75,665.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts established in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff received the claim of this case against Defendant A of Hyundai Card from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank lawfully, so the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 22,775,665 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 4,755,056,056 and delay damages amount of KRW 18,020,609) and the principal amount of KRW 4,755,056, as the Plaintiff seeks against the Plaintiff, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 25, 2015, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendants asserted that the determination of the Defendants’ assertion did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims, and that the claim in this case was extinguished due to the lapse of the five-year statute of limitations.

In this case, each transferor is after the previous transfer of the claim of this case.

arrow