beta
Text
1. As to KRW 49,207,963 and KRW 25,795,901 among the Plaintiff, Defendant C shall be from November 26, 2019 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The cause of the instant claim against Defendant C is as shown in the separate sheet of the cause of the claim, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts constituting the cause of the claim, or it can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 11 and the whole purport
[On the other hand, Defendant C may assert to the effect that it contests the notification of the assignment of claims, but according to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments as stated in Evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 11, Defendant C’s principal and interest claim against Defendant E (hereinafter “the principal and interest claim of this case”).
() The fact that this F Limited Company (hereinafter “F Limited Company”) was transferred to the Plaintiff in sequential order from G Co., Ltd., and the fact that the Plaintiff, who received the transfer of the principal and interest of loan of this case and all rights incidental thereto, notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the principal and interest of this case by the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, this part of the allegation by Defendant C is without merit. Accordingly, Defendant C is liable to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate, from November 26, 2019 to the day of full payment, with respect to KRW 49,207,963 and KRW 25,795,901, which is the day following
2. Claim against Defendant D
(a) Indication of claims: To describe the grounds for claims and the changed grounds for claims as shown in the attached Form;
B. Grounds for recognition: The facts raised on November 25, 2019, within the exclusion period [five years from the date of consultation on the division of inherited property, which is a fraudulent act ( December 26, 2014)] of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant D by a confession (Articles 208(3) and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) is obvious.
On the other hand, Defendant C may argue that the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act revocation claim and restitution claim against Defendant D are disputed. However, Defendant C is not a party to the above fraudulent act revocation claim and restitution claim, and it is not a separate determination as to this part of this claim by Defendant C.