logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.15 2017나42615
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to KRW 1,643,207 and KRW 595,384 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff on November 18, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff (formerly changed company: database loan company) is a loan company that completed registration pursuant to the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”).

B. On June 10, 2008, the Defendant borrowed KRW 7,000,000 from the social company E&P from June 10, 2008, with the loan interest rate of 48.54% and delay damages rate of 48.54% and the loan deadline of 10 June 10, 201.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). C.

On June 30, 201, E&P lending Co., Ltd. transferred in sequence the claim for the instant loan to the Plaintiff on February 22, 2014.

around May 25, 2017, E&P social loan companies and E&P capital loan companies were notified of the above assignment of claims to the defendant and reached the defendant around that time.

Meanwhile, the Defendant did not pay the instant loan from February 2012. As of November 17, 2016, the instant loan amounted to KRW 1,643,207 in total, and the principal amount is KRW 595,384 in total.

The overdue interest rate applied by the plaintiff to this is 39% per annum.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who received the instant loan claim, the total amount of KRW 1,643,207 of the principal and interest of the instant loan and the interest rate of KRW 595,384 of the principal and interest, calculated at the rate of 39% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate for the Plaintiff from November 18, 2016 to the date of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendant is ordered to pay the above amount, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow