beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 58,742,173 and KRW 31,937,752 per annum from August 4, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 10, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired a claim against the Defendant from the Non-Party National Bank, and at that time notified the Defendant of the fact.
B. As of August 3, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claims for principal and interest against the Defendant amounting to KRW 58,742,173, and the principal amount is KRW 31,937,752, and the agreed delay damages rate is KRW 17% per annum.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from August 4, 2014 to the date of full payment, with respect to the sum of principal and interest of KRW 58,742,173 as well as KRW 31,937,752 as principal and interest of KRW 31,97,752 as above, barring any special circumstance.
In this regard, the defendant, at the time of the auction of the defendant's factory in 2004 to 2008, the above national bank neglected expenses for the defendant's factory and stolen the machinery in the above factory, which is the responsibility of the national bank, and at the time, the national bank paid compensation to the defendant as the responsibility of the national bank, and the defendant requested compensation for damages or declared a offset against the national bank. Rather, since the damage suffered by the defendant remains a set-off disposition against the national bank, it is argued that the defendant cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the national bank caused damage to the defendant as above by the statement in subparagraph 1 to 3 alone, and there is no other evidence to support this, the defendant's above assertion based on this premise is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.