logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.24 2014나69923
대여금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

B. The defendant

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 31, 201, the Defendant borrowed 3,000,000 won from the Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”) at the rate of 39% per annum, 44% per annum per annum, and 60 months during the lending period.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

Afterward, the Defendant lost the interest of the instant loan on May 21, 2013, and based on March 24, 2013, the balance of the principal of the instant loan is KRW 2,545,321.

C. On January 31, 2013, the Solomon Savings Bank transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff. On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff was delegated by the Solomon Savings Bank, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of the instant loan claim. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (mutual name at the time: Telomon Loan Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “ Intervenor”) on which the instant appeal was pending on March 18, 2015, and upon delegation by the Plaintiff, the Intervenor notified the Defendant of the assignment of the instant loan claim.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim still sought payment of the principal and interest of the instant case against the Defendant without withdrawing from the instant lawsuit even after the Intervenor succeeded to the lawsuit at the trial court.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had already transferred the instant loan claims against the Defendant to the intervenors, and no longer has the right to seek payment of the principal and interest of the instant loan claims against the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

B. According to the facts finding as to the Intervenor’s claim, the Defendant calculated the ratio of the agreed interest rate of 39% per annum from March 25, 2013, which is the date following the above basic date to May 21, 2013, and the agreed interest rate of 44% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

arrow