beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 110,249,661 as well as KRW 70,720,000 among them, from December 17, 2018 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 9, 2012, the Small and Medium Business Corporation: (a) granted a loan of KRW 100 million to the Defendant operating the “B”, and entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant to repay the loan to the equal installment method on the repayment date each month in accordance with the repayment date schedule for repayment of principal and interest (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) for two years following a one-year grace period.
B. On December 9, 2016, the Small and Medium Business Corporation transferred the principal and interest loan claim under the instant loan agreement (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the Plaintiff, and on January 12, 2017, sent a notice of assignment to the Defendant by content-certified mail.
C. As of December 17, 2018, the instant claims amount to KRW 70,720,00 as principal and KRW 39,529,661 in total, and KRW 110,249,661 in total.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff who acquired the instant claim the amount of KRW 110,249,661 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, which is the interest rate of delay damages, from December 17, 2018 to the date of full payment.
B. The defendant's defense 1) since the defendant was not notified of the transfer of the claim of this case, it is defense that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. In the absence of special circumstances, if the items proving the contents are sent and not returned differently, it is reasonable to deem that the notice of the transfer of claim was sent to the recipient at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 2000; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 200), there is no evidence to prove that the notice of