(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.15 2014나53171

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 2015.07.15 2014나53171

양수금

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim concerning it shall be dismissed;

2. The defendant shall be the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The defendant entered into a credit card transaction agreement with Choung-Hy Bank (which was merged with the new bank) on April 24, 1998, setting the limit of KRW 5,000,000 with the card loan, and the due date on April 24, 1999, and applied for a credit card and used it.

Since April 26, 1999, the defendant delayed the repayment of credit card payments, and the agreed delay damages rate applied to arrears is 28% per annum.

On the other hand, the credit card payment claim of this case was transferred from the new bank to the plaintiff, the C&B investment loan company, and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor in sequence, and the assignment of claims was notified at the time of transfer.

The credit card payment claim of the Plaintiff-Successor acquired by the Plaintiff-Successor is the principal of KRW 12,258,487 as of March 3, 2015, and the interest or delay damages are KRW 45,193,941.

[Reasons for Recognition] Byung 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. According to the fact of fact-finding, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s succession, which is the final transferee of the instant credit card payment claim, the principal amount of KRW 57,452,428 (interest of KRW 12,258,487 or delay damages of KRW 45,193,941) and the principal amount of KRW 12,258,487, whichever is below, within the limit of the agreed delay damages rate of KRW 17% per annum from March 4, 2015 to the day of full payment.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff transferred the instant credit card payment claim, so there is no right to seek payment of the instant card payment from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Although the Defendant asserts that he did not have entered into the instant card payment limit loan contract, the signature in the instant contract (A. 6) is recognized as one’s own (the second date for pleading in the appellate trial). Therefore, the authenticity of the instant contract is recognized.

As long as the authenticity of the contract, which is a disposal document, is recognized, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(2) The following:

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.03 2015나21799

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.09 2016나3897

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.28 2017나6787

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.01 2014나70015

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.24 2014나69763