beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 24,202.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred credit card loans to the Defendant (hereinafter “C”) by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and credit card loans to the Defendant of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and notified the Defendant of the said transfer of credit in accordance with Article 7 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on June 16, 2005.
C Loans C in June 28, 2002, 35,961 won, 288,732 won, 273,913 won, 12,415,326 won, 415,326 won, 5,146, 351, 971 won in total, 5,146,620 won, 19,056,029 won, 202, 3,273,913 won, 12,415, 326 won, 346 won, 5,146,620 won, 19,056,029 won, 200.
B. The remainder of the base date of July 9, 2018, transferred to the Plaintiff, is as follows.
C. On December 27, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred the said claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the said assignment of claims as the Plaintiff’s agent around May 24, 2019.
The overdue interest rate of each of the above bonds is 17% per annum until December 31, 2016 and 15% per annum from January 1, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the final transferee of the claim of each of the loans of this case, the balance of the principal and interest of this case (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 5,146,620 and KRW 19,056,029) and the delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 5,146,620 among them, barring any special circumstances.
B. The defendant defense 1 set up that each of the claims of this case was extinguished by prescription.
The facts that the maturity of C Loan Agreement was December 17, 2003 and October 17, 2005 are as seen earlier.
However, the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order only on July 1, 2018, which was five years after the lapse of the five years from the Plaintiff, is apparent in the record.
However, evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 4-1, 1.