beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is the defendant's successor intervenor 14,660,357 won and 13,915.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 12, and Eul evidence No. 5:
The Defendant borrowed KRW 62,00,000 from Hyundai Social Co., Ltd. on December 16, 201 by determining 36 months of the loan period, 17.9% of the loan interest rate, and 29% of the overdue interest rate and 62,00,000 won at a loan rate on December 16, 201.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
After that, the Defendant lost the benefit of time by delaying the repayment of the principal and interest of the instant loan, which was not paid as of September 20, 2012, including the principal amount of KRW 13,915,116, unpaid interest amount of KRW 700,171, and delay damages amount of KRW 450,070.
C. On October 4, 2012, Hyundai Social Co., Ltd. transferred the instant principal and interest of loan to Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on October 8 of the same year, and Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. again transferred the claim to the Plaintiff’s successor on June 21, 2013 when the instant lawsuit was pending, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on March 20, 2014.
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 14,660,357, including the principal and interest of the instant case, and the principal of KRW 13,915,116, whichever is later after the Defendant lost the benefit of time, delay damages calculated at the rate of 29% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from September 21, 2012 to the date of full payment.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant stated the name of the instant loan application (No. 2) and affixed the Defendant’s own seal on the name of the Defendant. However, the Defendant asserted that the details indicated in the loan application were not stated by the Defendant, and the Defendant is not liable for the instant loan.