beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 151,960,750 won to the plaintiff and 79,315,040 won among them to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 9, 2015, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) granted a loan of KRW 80,000 to the Defendant in KRW 36 months, loan interest rate of KRW 16.9%, and delayed interest rate of KRW 27.9% to the Defendant.
(hereinafter “instant loan 1”). (b)
E on May 21, 2015, the period of loans of KRW 31,00,000 to the Defendant was 48 months, loan interest rate was 18.9%, and delayed interest rate was 27.9%.
(hereinafter “instant two loans”). C.
However, the defendant delayed the repayment of the above loan, and accordingly, the defendant lost the benefit of the time limit for the loan.
On the other hand, 9,871,720 won out of the disposal price was appropriated for the Defendant's second loan obligation of this case from the disposal price around February 3, 2017.
E. On October 2, 2018, E transferred the instant claims for loans to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims at that time.
F. As of February 11, 2020, the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff is KRW 151,960,750 in total, and the principal is KRW 79,315,040 in total.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, as to the plaintiff's principal and interest of KRW 151,960,750, and principal of KRW 79,315,040, the defendant, as to the plaintiff, 24% interest rate of KRW 27.9% per annum from March 5, 2020 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the service of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and the day of full payment, as stipulated by the law concerning registration of credit business, etc. and protection of finance users, the plaintiff shall claim interest of KRW
Any person shall be liable to pay damages for delay at the ratio of such damages.
Although the Defendant asserts that the obligation for the instant loan 2 was fully repaid while returning the NAS vehicle to E, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the obligation for the instant loan 2 was extinguished in excess of the amount appropriated earlier.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.
3. Conclusion.