beta
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 (1) around September 2000, B, the Defendant’s wife, omitted from the company’s trade name, “stock company.”
The Defendant’s credit card membership application (hereinafter “instant contract”) and the instant contract were prepared and submitted.
② On October 25, 200, B issued a credit card from Samsung Card and used the credit card by means of short-term card loans, long-term card loans, etc. from December 13, 2000 to April 2, 2003.
B From May 9, 2003, the card price of Samsung Card was 12,071,50 won and the card price of 1,299,000 won on June 10, 2002 (=12,071,50 won) were overdue.
Meanwhile, the overdue interest rate stipulated in the contract of this case is 28% per annum.
③ The Samsung Card entered into an asset transfer agreement, on October 24, 2003, with respect to LG investment securities, and LG investment securities, with the content that the Plaintiff transfers all of the interest, including credit card payments, interest incidental thereto, delay damages, and other rights to the Defendant.
LG investment securities and the Plaintiff were delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims, and sent a certificate of contents indicating the purport of the notification of the assignment of claims to the Defendant’s domicile on December 18, 2003.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2 through 5, 9 (if there are provisional numbers, including all branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Existence of claim for the amount taken over;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i) concluded the instant contract with the Samsung Card and Party B, who is the Defendant’s wife, on his behalf, signed the instant contract on behalf of the Defendant.
B, as so-called “unauthorized Agency”, signed the instant contract under the Defendant’s name without the Defendant’s permission, the Defendant implicitly ratified the instant contract.
Dor, Defendant B’s father, without permission of the Defendant, signed the instant contract in the name of the Defendant.
The defendant did not ratification the conclusion of the contract of this case.
Therefore, the defendant.