beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the Industrial Bank of Korea and the Joint Asset Management Co., Ltd. and the Defendant respectively transferred each of the claims of this case to the Defendant was lawfully concluded; and (b) the notification of the assignment of claims to D was lawful.
In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by recognizing facts against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of the assignment of claims, and notification
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined as follows: (a) it is insufficient to recognize that the part on which the document of mortgage agreement drawn up on January 24, 2005 and December 13, 2006 between D and the Industrial Bank of Korea takes the form of a standardized contract printed in the same text, including “debts arising from credit card transactions” in the secured obligation, is merely an unBinding example between the parties.
In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the terms and conditions.
3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the period of prescription has not elapsed since the Industrial Bank applied for a voluntary auction as to the instant apartment around September 18, 201, at the time when the Industrial Bank of Korea applied for a voluntary auction as to the instant apartment, five years have not passed since the extinctive prescription was interrupted by approving D’s debt.
In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is reasonable and reasonable as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.