beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s KRW 664,278,680 and KRW 25,272,102 from August 17, 2016 to September 27, 2016, respectively, 12.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), facts such as the entry of the reasons for the claim in the annexed sheet are recognized.
B. Therefore, from August 17, 2016 to September 27, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of 12.4% per annum for the remainder of the principal amount of KB loans from August 17, 2016 and KRW 25,272,102, based on each agreement rate of 9.41% per annum for the principal amount of KB house purchase loans, and 630,000,000 per annum for the principal amount of KB house purchase loans from September 41 to the date of full payment, and under the agreement rate of 15% per annum for the damages for delay from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant raises a defense that each of the obligations stated in the attached Form 1 has not yet arrived.
According to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), Article 7(1)2 of the Plaintiff’s Basic Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions provides that “When a seizure order or a notice of attachment is issued with respect to a secured property provided by an obligor, or when compulsory execution or a disposition on default is commenced by other means,” the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract with respect to B apartment Nos. 101 and 1803 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of securing a loan for KB house purchase, and on October 23, 2015, the registration of seizure was completed for the Defendant’s tax arrears after the registration of seizure was completed for the above apartment, and the fact that the public sale procedure was completed on the basis of the above registration of seizure and completed on July 28, 2016 shall be acknowledged. According to the above recognition of the above terms and conditions, the Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff’s entire obligation to the Plaintiff is without merit.
(b).