beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence No. 1, ① on February 25, 2011, the defendant was given a loan of KRW 94 million at an interest rate of KRW 20% per annum, interest rate of 29% per annum, interest rate of 4 million per annum, 48 months per annum, and principal and interest repayment method, and thereafter, the defendant was given a loan to the defendant on February 25, 201, with equal repayment of principal and interest in repayment, and thereafter, the defendant was given an agreement to change the principal amount of KRW 34,627,60 per annum, interest rate of KRW 20 per annum, interest rate of KRW 29% per annum, interest rate of 20% per annum, interest rate of 29% per annum, interest rate of 29% per annum on March 14, 2017; ② thereafter, the defendant was transferred monthly installments to the defendant on March 27, 14, 2016.
2. Judgment on the parties' arguments
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, a total of KRW 45,484,932 (interest of KRW 34,627,660 (interest of KRW 10,857,272) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 29% per annum from December 2, 2013 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of KRW 34,627,660, which is the day following the last overdue interest calculation day.
B. The judgment of the defendant's assertion (1) The defendant first is the actual debtor B of the loan of this case, and the defendant's father C's coercion signed and sealed the loan-related documents.
However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(2) Next, the Defendant acquired the instant loan claim at an amount of up to 7% of the amount of credit from Aju Capital, even though the Plaintiff acquired it.