beta
Text
1. Defendant A’s interest rate of KRW 88,178,301 and KRW 33,119,858 among the Plaintiff shall be from September 18, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The fact-finding loan No. 10,446,097 19,097 19,016,944 2,615,615,562,563 4,563 3 4,07,077,5615,59,5524 "517,403 710,528 710,528 528 5 Samsung Card No. 11,99,22520,95,2726 372,672,605,605,608,608,568,538,485,584,5585,524
A. Defendant A was liable for a loan or credit card payment to the original credit company as listed below, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligations listed in No. 7.
B. The Plaintiff received from the original claim company the claim Nos. 1 and 2 on April 10, 2009, the claim Nos. 3 and 4 on June 21, 2013, and the claim Nos. 5, 6, and 7 on June 28, 2013, respectively, and notified the Defendant A of the assignment of each claim upon delegation by the original claim company.
C. The interest rate for delay of each of the above claims exceeds 17% per annum, and the principal and interest for delay as of September 17, 2014 are as stated in the above Table.
[Ground of recognition] Gap 1 to 9 evidence
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of claims such as the above loan, etc., Defendant A is obligated to pay the principal and interest of KRW 88,178,301 and KRW 33,119,858; Defendant B is jointly and severally with the Defendant for the principal and interest of KRW 2,89,533 of the above money and KRW 290,965 of the principal and interest of KRW 7 from September 18, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the following day.
B. Defendant B’s defense is a defense that Defendant B’s obligation of the loans listed in No. 7 became extinct by the statute of limitations, and according to Defendant B’s evidence No. 7, it can be acknowledged that Defendant B lent the loans listed in No. 7 to Defendant A by setting on December 6, 2003 as the expiration date of the lending period until December 8, 2005. The lawsuit of this case is five years after the expiration date.