(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.16 2015나7960

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.16 2015나7960

양수금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

Reasons

1. On November 27, 2012, Industrial Complex Loan Co., Ltd. extended a loan on July 27, 2015 with a lending period of KRW 5 million to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant shall repay the principal and interest in equal amounts, 36.5% per month, and 250,000 per month.

(B) On December 26, 2013, Korea Development Bank Co., Ltd. transferred the principal and interest interest of this case to the Plaintiff on December 26, 2013, and the transfer was notified around that time.

Meanwhile, since May 2013, the Defendant lost the benefit of time due to the Defendant’s failure to repay the principal and interest of this case. The principal of this case that the Defendant failed to repay was KRW 4,486,098, and the sum of the principal and interest of this case was KRW 6,334,369, by June 16, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, a transferee of the principal and interest of the instant loan, with interest rate of 36.5% per annum from June 17, 2014 to the date of full payment, as well as interest rate of 36.5% per annum on delayed interest rate of 6,334,369 won and the principal of the loan from among them.

In this regard, the defendant filed an application for the individual rehabilitation procedure with Seoul Central District Court 2014da41240 and dismissed the individual rehabilitation procedure, but the defendant asserted that the defendant is not able to cope with the above excessive debt as the situation in which the appeal was filed.

However, on August 26, 2015, the appeal filed by the defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2015Ra1000) also dismissed the defendant's appeal on August 26, 2015.

(However, the situation where the defendant submitted a reappeal) and the situation such as the lack of practical ability to repay cannot be a legitimate legal defense for the defendant's obligation to perform the monetary obligation.

Therefore, all of the defendant's arguments are not accepted.

3. The decision of the first instance court, which forms a conclusion, is justifiable.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.14 2015나59152

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.08 2015가단5033673

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.15 2015나40875

-청주지방법원 2015.05.28 2014가단17046

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.21 2015나14432