beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. On February 27, 2013, the Defendant: KRW 477,397 and KRW 414,778 among the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The fact that the Defendant entered into a credit card use contract with C Co., Ltd., and accordingly, received the credit card and received the credit card accordingly, thereby causing the credit card use price.
(2) On July 2, 2009, C Co., Ltd. transferred the above credit card payment claim to the Defendant in sequential order to D Limited Company, and D Limited Company transferred the above credit card payment claim to the Plaintiff on December 13, 201, and on June 26, 2013, each of the above assignment of claims was notified to the Defendant by content-certified mail.
(3) As of February 26, 2013, the principal and interest of the credit card usage-price claim remains 477,397 won (= Principal KRW 414,778 and interest KRW 62,619). The agreed interest rate is 23% per annum.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of determination, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 477,397 and the principal of KRW 414,78 from February 27, 2013, the following day of the above base date to January 31, 2018, the agreed interest rate of KRW 23% per annum, and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum, as the Plaintiff seeks, from the next day to the day of full payment.
Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot claim the payment of the amount of transfer because he was not notified of the transfer of the above credit card usage claim. Thus, the fact that the transfer of the above credit card usage claim was notified to the defendant by content-certified mail is as seen earlier, and the content-certified mail is presumed to have been served at the time of the dispatch unless there are special circumstances such as the return of the content-certified mail (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 200). Thus, there is no evidence to prove that the above content-certified mail was returned, and the above transfer notification by content-certified mail was delivered to the defendant at that time