beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 96,382,834 and KRW 71,169,296 among them, from August 18, 2015 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 31, 2007, Korea Standards Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Resid Bank”) loaned KRW 100 million to the Defendant at interest rate of KRW 100 million per annum 1.5% per annum on the distribution rate of three months CDs, and damages for delay rate of KRW 18% or 21% per annum depending on the number of delayed days, and hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”).
(B) After that, the Defendant lost the benefit of time by delaying the payment of the instant loan claims. (B) On April 23, 2015, the next bank transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on May 8, 2015. (c) The instant loan obligations are KRW 96,382,834 as of August 17, 2015 (the principal amount is KRW 71,169,296). [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in the evidence No. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff who acquired the instant loan claim of this case the amount of KRW 96,382,834 and the principal amount of KRW 71,169,296 among them, delay damages calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from August 18, 2015 to the date of full payment.
B. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant asserts to the effect that the loan claim of this case was fully repaid in the course of selling real estate owned by the defendant, which is the security of the loan claim of this case, through voluntary auction
However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the entries in the evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them, and rather, according to the statements in the evidence No. 5 and No. 6, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff acquired the claim remaining after partial repayment in the auction procedure for real estate owned by the Defendant, from the next bank. Thus, the Defendant’s defense cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.