logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.29 2018가단5105302
양수금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 40 million won to the plaintiff and 22% per annum from March 24, 2008 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The facts supporting the determination of the cause of the claim are either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including the serial number), together with the purport of the entire pleadings.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40,000,000 won, which is a part of the principal and interest obligation, and 22% interest per annum from March 24, 2008 to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. B, the representative of the defendant, was exempted from bankruptcy, the defendant was closed, and the assignment of claims cannot be agreed, so the defendant is not obligated to pay the money stated in the claim to the plaintiff.

B. According to Article 14-2(2) and (4) of the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry with respect to the assertion of non-assignment to the assignment of claims, if public notice of the summary of the decision on the transfer of contracts and the fact of the transfer of contracts in two or more daily newspapers is deemed to meet the requirements for setting up against the transfer of designated claims under Article 450 of the Civil Act. Thus, even if the Defendant failed to be notified directly by the Plaintiff as to the fact of the transfer of claims of this case, or the Defendant did not consent to the transfer of claims, it does not affect the legal effect of the transfer of claims against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted. 2) The Defendant’s representative, as the Defendant’s representative, was exempted from bankruptcy, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant discontinued the transfer of claims, and the Plaintiff did not claim against B as the Defendant’s representative, and thus, the issue of bankruptcy immunity does not affect the establishment of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the transfer of claims of this case.

arrow