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. Basic facts
A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) entered into a D Card Use Agreement with the Defendant on July 1, 2013, and loaned KRW 1,600,000 to the Defendant on July 16, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant loans”). (b)
C on July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff. On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff was delegated with the power of notice of transfer by C and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim.
C. As of September 28, 2017, the claim for the instant loan remains in KRW 1,940,757, including the principal amount of KRW 1,299,486, overdue interest of KRW 641,271, etc.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts acknowledged in the above facts in determining the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant loan claim, the total amount of KRW 1,940,757 (= Principal KRW 1,299,486 + overdue interest + KRW 641,271) and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 1,29,486.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case on the premise that C’s claim of this case against the Defendant exists valid, since C’s claim of this case against the Defendant was extinguished by depreciating and disposing of the claim of this case’s loan of this case.
Therefore, as to whether the Defendant’s obligation to the instant loan to C has been extinguished by the depreciation of the claim for the instant loan, it is not sufficient to accept the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge it; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it; and (c) there is no reason to review the remainder of the claim.
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant's KRW 1,940,757 and KRW 1,299,486 among them are the plaintiff.