logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.28 2017가합509831
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2005, Korea Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) granted a loan of KRW 360 million to Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) from October 31, 2005 to October 27, 2006, with the extension period of KRW 30 million as from October 31, 2005 to October 27, 2006, with the interest rate of KRW 3.04% per annum for less than three months, with the interest rate of KRW 17% per annum for less than three months, and not less than three months from the overdue interest rate of the Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). The Defendant Co., Ltd, the representative director of the Defendant Company, set the guarantee limit of the Defendant Company’s above principal and interest amount of KRW 612 million

B. On December 30, 2010, our bank transferred each of the instant principal and interest claim to Hyundai Switzerland Savings Bank on February 16, 2012, and notified each of the Defendant companies around that time.

C. On October 29, 2015, Hyundai SP Savings Bank merged with SP Savings Bank (hereinafter “SB Savings Bank”), and on October 29, 2015, the SP Savings Bank transferred the principal and interest interest claim of this case to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-2, 3-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable to pay the instant principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff received the instant claim for the principal and interest of the loan from the Korea Bank and the Korea ABA Savings Bank, and SBA Savings Bank sent a notice of assignment to the Defendant Company around February 1, 2016 and April 14, 2016.

B. In order for the assignee to exercise his claim against the obligor on the ground that the assignee has been assigned the nominative claim from the transferor of the claim, the assignment of nominative claim is relevant.

arrow