beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from April 10, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 14, 2012, D Co., Ltd.: (a) determined and lent KRW 330,000,000 to the Defendant at a damages rate of 25% for delay;
(hereinafter “Claims for loans of this case”). (b)
D Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loans to E Co., Ltd. on September 29, 2014, and around that time notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.
C. Meanwhile, on April 9, 2015, E Co., Ltd. received reimbursement of KRW 337,625,389 in the F real estate auction procedure with the Seoul Western District Court’s Seoul Western District Court’s 337,625,38, and appropriated the interest accrued until then to KRW 93,124,38, and principal amount for KRW 244,501,001.
E Co., Ltd. transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff on April 28, 2016, and around that time notified the Defendant of the fact of assignment by content-certified mail.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from April 10, 2015, the date following the above dividend date to the date of full payment, which is the agreed interest rate of 85,498,99 won (330,000,000 won - 244,501,001), which is the partial claim of the Plaintiff, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from April 10, 2015 to the date of full payment.
B. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment 1) asserts that since the Defendant was not notified of the fact that the instant loan claim was transferred to the Plaintiff, it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. As seen earlier, E Co., Ltd. sent the notice of assignment by content-certified mail to the Defendant, and the content-certified mail is presumed to have been sent at the time of delivery unless there are special circumstances, such as the return of the content-certified mail (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 2000). It is reasonable to deem that the above content-certified mail was returned to the Defendant, and
Even if the above notice was not delivered to the defendant around that time, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 and all pleadings, E.