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. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 16, 201, the Defendant received a loan of KRW 285,00,000 from the Bank of Korea (hereinafter “instant loan”) at the interest rate of KRW 2.47% per annum for less than three months per annum, 17% per annum for less than three months per annum, 19% per annum for not less than three months, and 12 months during the lending period (hereinafter “instant loan”).
B. On August 30, 2012, our bank’s loan claims of this case were transferred to the limited company specializing in the 17th Asset-backed Securitization Specialized in Korea; on February 27, 2014, to the Crable Asset Management Loan Limited Company; on April 18, 2014; and on November 14, 2014, respectively, to the studio Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd.; and each of the above assignment claims was notified to the Defendant.
C. As of November 4, 2016, the instant loan claims amounting to KRW 24,025,504 (= principal principal KRW 15,058,214 and delay damages amounting to KRW 8,967,290) remains.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant loan claim, the amount of KRW 24,025,504, the total amount of principal and interest of the instant loan claim, and the amount of KRW 15,058,214, whichever is the principal, to the Plaintiff, the delay damages calculated at the rate of 19% per annum, which is the delay damages rate, from November 5, 2016 to the date of full payment.
B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the purport that it is unreasonable for C to bear the obligation of the instant loan against the Defendant, whose representative director is the Defendant, as the co-defendant B was at the time when the Defendant’s co-defendant B was the Defendant’s representative director, and as such, B had the Defendant take over the Defendant by deceiving C, which is the Defendant’s representative director, as if there was no obligation owed by the Defendant.
However, the defendant is a stock company regardless of whether it has changed its representative director.