logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.03 2016나1570
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 41,69,808 and KRW 9,000 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 41,69,808 and the Plaintiff’s KRW 9,00,00 on July 11, 2014

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 31, 1997, the New Network Credit Union (hereinafter “New Network Credit Union”) (hereinafter “New Network”) lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant at an interest rate of 15.75% per annum, interest rate of delay 25% per annum, and due date of payment January 31, 200 (hereinafter “instant loans”).

B. Since then, the Defendant lost the benefit of time by delaying the repayment of the instant loan.

C. On December 13, 2001, the New Cooperatives transferred the instant loan claims to the Reorganization Financial Corporation, and on April 30, 2007, the Reorganization Financial Corporation transferred them to the Yangyang Mutual Savings Bank. On October 31, 2009, the Yangyang Mutual Savings Bank transferred them to the Plaintiff. Each transferor around the time of the transfer of each of the above claims notified the Defendant of the transfer of claims.

As of July 10, 2014, the principal of the instant loan is KRW 9,00,000, and interest is KRW 32,69,808.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan claim amounting to KRW 41,69,808 (= principal principal amounting to KRW 9,00,000,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 11, 2014 to the date of full payment.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendant is ordered to pay the above amount, but it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 98 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

arrow