logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단127293
양수금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 92,440,575 and KRW 87,66,518 among them, 24% per annum from August 27, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. The following facts as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4.

From May 2009, the Defendant entered into a credit card use contract with Hyundai Card Company.

B. On August 8, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the principal and interest of credit card payment claims against the Defendant from the Hyundai Card, and the Hyundai Card transferred it to the Defendant around that time.

C. Around August 26, 2015, the principal and interest are KRW 87,66,518, unpaid interest 1,616,886, delay damages 3,157,171, total of KRW 92,440,575, which is the principal and interest of credit card use.

The overdue interest rate determined by the Hyundai Card shall be applied differently from 25% per annum to 29.9% per annum.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 92,440,575 and the amount of KRW 87,66,518, whichever is the principal, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the interest rate for delayed damage that the Plaintiff seeks from August 27, 2015 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed because the defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation. However, according to the data submitted by the defendant, the defendant's application for individual rehabilitation at Seoul Central District Court 2015 Session 101286 can be acknowledged, but since the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedure was not issued yet, it is not an obstacle to accepting the plaintiff's claim.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

arrow