beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 233,041,065 and the amount of KRW 63,521,176 from December 9, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. In full view of the evidence No. 1 to No. 5 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the facts recorded as the cause of the claim in the annexed sheet can be acknowledged.
(1) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, who acquired the claim of the Central Saemaul Savings Depository, the total sum of KRW 233,041,065, and the principal amount of KRW 63,521,176, as sought by the Plaintiff from December 9, 2015 to the date of full payment, as well as the notification of assignment of claim and the defense of extinctive prescription under the circumstances. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum as requested by the Plaintiff from December 9, 2015 to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that the notification of assignment of claims did not receive notification of assignment of claims concerning the plaintiff's assignment of claims.
However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 3 and 4, the fact that the Plaintiff, on June 23, 2014, notified the Defendant of the transfer by content-certified mail (the service address is the same as the current address of the Defendant) is recognized.
In a case where, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the content-certified mail sent by the Plaintiff was served at that time, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 200). In this case, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the content-certified mail sent by the Plaintiff was returned, it is reasonable to deem that the above content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 200). The Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.
B. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription expired due to the expiration of ten-year extinctive prescription of the instant claim that the Plaintiff acquired.