beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s KRW 4,769,850 and KRW 2,286,735 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 2,286,735 on March 8, 2013.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 21, 2002, the Good Credit Depository Co., Ltd. (the Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., on March 1, 2002) concluded a comprehensive passbook loan agreement with the Defendant with the amount of KRW 5,000,00,000. At the time, the damages for delay was determined and posted by the above Credit Depository.
B. After that, on March 16, 2007, the above loan agreement was transferred to the Liquidation Corporation, Inc., and thereafter, on July 15, 2009, the loan claim was transferred to the Bai Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., and on May 13, 201, the loan claim was transferred to the Bai Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., and on June 20, 201, the loan was transferred in succession to the mentoran Loan Co., Ltd., Ltd., and on June 20, 2012, the final transfer was transferred to the Plaintiff on July 31, 2012. At the time of each of the above transfer, the transferor or the transferee entrusted by the transferor notified the Defendant of the transfer
C. Meanwhile, as of March 7, 2013, the balance of the principal and interest of a loan based on the said loan contract as of March 7, 2013 is KRW 4,769,850 in total (i.e., principal amount of KRW 2,286,735 in interest and delay damages amount of KRW 2,483,115 in total). The interest rate after the said base
[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination and conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from March 8, 2013 to the date of full payment, with respect to the above KRW 4,769,850 and KRW 2,286,735, which is the day following the above base date.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, so it is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below to order the defendant to pay the above amount.