logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.19 2017가단5212227
양수금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,531,385 and the amount of KRW 46,622,685 from September 23, 2017 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2003, the National Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Bank”) established and lent a loan to the Defendant on July 31, 2003 at interest rate of KRW 90 million per annum 21% per annum, delay damages, and due date on July 30, 2004.

B. Since then, while the National Bank and the Defendant changed the agreement by extending the above period of repayment by one year, the end of August 3, 2010 changed the period of repayment into KRW 81 million.

C. However, the defendant did not repay the above borrowed money at the time of payment.

On July 5, 2013, the National Bank granted the Plaintiff the authority to notify the assignment of claims while transferring the above loan claims against the Defendant. Accordingly, on June 23, 2014, the Defendant sent the notice of assignment of claims by content-certified mail of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment 102 Dong 606, which is the Defendant’s domicile.

E. As of September 22, 2017, the foregoing loan claims remain at KRW 46,622,685 as principal and KRW 53,908,700 as of September 22, 2017, and the rate of damages for delay applied after January 1, 2017 is 15% per annum.

【Partial grounds for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. With respect to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff sought the payment of the above loan claim that was transferred from the national bank, the defendant first does not have any record of being notified of the assignment of the claim from the national bank, and even if it is not so, the above claim becomes invalid and extinguished after the extinctive prescription expires.

B. (1) We examine whether the notice of assignment of claim was given to the Defendant first.

If a content-certified postal item is not returned after being dispatched, it shall be deemed that it was delivered at that time, barring special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 2000). However, the Plaintiff’s right to notify the assignment of claims from a national bank.

arrow