logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.09.14 2018가단200062
양수금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,600,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 61% from January 1, 2017 to January 19, 2018, and the next day.

Reasons

1. On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff received 61,600,000 won from the sales bonds held by the non-party company against the Defendant for the purpose of securing the claim for the loan, and the non-party company notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above credit on December 27, 2016.

[In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings] The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 61,600,000 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from January 1, 2017 to January 19, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's defense against the defendant is that the assignment of the claim of this case was made for the purpose of securing the claim against the non-party company, so it is so-called "act of trust under the Civil Act" and it should be exercised only within the scope of the original claim for the purpose of securing the existing claim. The plaintiff's claim against the non-party company does not remain to the extent of KRW 61,60,000. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot

However, in this case where the Defendant did not deny the Defendant’s obligation owed to the non-party company, so long as it is obvious that the claim was legitimately transferred to the Plaintiff, even if the assignment was made for the purpose of securing the Plaintiff’s claim against the non-party company, it is only a matter between the transferor and

Therefore, the defendant, who is the debtor of the transferred claim, has been transferred regardless of the extinguishment of the obligation between the transferor and transferee.

arrow