beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 4,373,759 and 1,47 among them.
Reasons
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought payment from the Defendant of Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”) and the Halomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”). The first instance court accepted only the claims based on which it was transferred from Solomon Savings Bank, and dismissed the claims based on which it was transferred from Solomon Savings Bank.
This Court's judgment is limited to the claim based on the claim asserted that the plaintiff acquired from Solomon Savings Bank, which was dismissed by the court of first instance.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Fact-finding 1) The Solomon Savings Bank applied for a payment order against the Defendant on September 18, 2007 with the Seoul Central District Court Order 2007 tea22599 on the basis of the claim against the Defendant, which was taken over from the Klomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above court’s “the Defendant shall pay to the Solomon Savings Bank 2,059,817 won and 1,447,418 won per annum from September 18, 2007 to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).
(2) On December 10, 2009, the Solomon Savings Bank transferred the claim based on the payment order of this case to the Plaintiff on the issuance of the instant payment order, and the Plaintiff was delegated by the Solomon Savings Bank and notified the Defendant on May 4, 2010.
3) Meanwhile, as of December 27, 2015, the sum of the principal and interest of the Defendant’s obligation to take over (a debt based on the instant payment order) as of December 27, 2015 (i.e., principal KRW 1,447,418 interest KRW 2,926,341). The Plaintiff’s overdue interest rate prescribed by the Plaintiff’s Business Regulations within the scope of the delayed interest rate of the purchase claim is 17% per annum. [The items stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 6-1, and 6-2 of the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
B. The above facts of recognition are examined.