beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought from the Defendant for the payment of the claims that the Plaintiff acquired from Hyundai Capital, our card, citizen card, lotl scam, teaching scam, teaching scam, and national bank. The first instance court accepted the claims on the claims that the Plaintiff acquired from Hyundai Capital, National Card, lotl Capital, and teaching scam, and dismissed the claims on the claims that the Defendant acquired from our card and national bank.
In this regard, the plaintiff only appealed against the part concerning the claims that he acquired from the bank (Korean card), so the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claims that the plaintiff acquired from the bank (Korean card).
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 11, and evidence Nos. 3-2, the defendant subscribed to the members of the Korean bank and non-Sch Card (Korean card) and purchased goods or services using the above credit card or obtained credit loans using the above credit card, and the Korean bank transferred its claims against the defendant on June 21, 2013 to the plaintiff on June 23, 2014. The plaintiff was delegated with authority from the above company and notified the defendant of the transfer of the above claims, and as of June 1, 2014, the balance of the above claims as of June 1, 2014 constitutes the total of KRW 638,08, interest KRW 752,820, KRW 190,828.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,390,828 as well as the principal amount of KRW 638,00,000 from June 2, 2014 to the date of full payment of the agreed damages for delay at the rate of KRW 17% per annum for the Plaintiff within the scope of the agreed damages for delay from June 2 to the date of full payment.
3. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's claim for the above money is justified, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, and thus, it is revoked and the defendant.