beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 70,068,047 and KRW 22,879,030 among them, from August 18, 2014 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of the claim may be accepted if the plaintiff acquired credit card loans from the following transfer institutions to the defendant on April 10, 2009 and December 10, 2009 ( Solomon Savings Bank) and notified the defendant of the purport of the assignment of credit card loans to the defendant on December 2, 2009 (New Card) and May 4, 2010 ( Solomon Savings Bank) by transfer of credit card loans from the following transfer institutions and notified the defendant of the purport of the assignment of credit card loans to the defendant on May 4, 2010 ( Solomon Savings Bank).
A If so, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, a transferee of each of the instant claims, 70,068,047 won of the principal and interest of loans and 22,879,030 won of the principal and interest of loans, calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from August 18, 2014 to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is a defense that the extinctive prescription of each credit card principal and interest of this case has already expired. Thus, since each credit card claim of this case constitutes commercial claims, the extinctive prescription period is five years.
However, if evidence Nos. 7 and 8 are added to the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that Non-Party EL Card Co., Ltd. applied for a payment order on Nov. 26, 2004 to the Suwon District Court Decision 2004Da301, Nov. 26, 2004, and the payment order was already finalized on Dec. 23, 2004. The defendant confirmed the current status of the principal and interest of each credit card of this case for personal bankruptcy on Sept. 25, 2014, and prepared and issued a letter of approval for debt and approved each of the principal and interest obligations of this case. Thus, the statute of limitations on each of the principal and interest obligations of this case was interrupted as the Defendant’s debt approval on Sept. 25, 2014.
Therefore, the plaintiff's second defense pointing this out is with merit, and the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.