logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.03.23 2015가단228280
양수금
Text

1. As to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff:

A. As to the defendant A, 67,671,851 won and 54,236,921 won among them, the defendant A shall start from November 8, 2004.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 5, 2005, Jeonju District Court Decision 2004Kadan8506 decided on July 5, 2005, each of the following was finalized on August 2, 2005 with respect to Defendant A and C, and July 27, 2005 with respect to Defendant B.

(The Plaintiff in the above case is the Jeonbuk Bank, and the loan claims of the Jeonbuk Bank, which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the above case, are the Plaintiff.

A. As to Defendant A, the amount calculated by applying the rate of 21% per annum from November 8, 2004 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 67,671,851 and KRW 54,236,921, and KRW 11,97,00 per annum from November 8, 2004 to the date of full payment;

B. As to (1) KRW 8,854,169 and its 8,700,000 among the amounts described in paragraph (a) jointly with Defendant A, the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 21% per annum within the limit of KRW 20,141,258 and KRW 20,000 among them, within the limit of KRW 20,141,258 and KRW 32,50,000,000, within the limit of KRW 25,536,921 and each of them, within the limit of KRW 32,50,00;

C. Defendant C is jointly and severally with Defendant A and B.

26,000,000 of the amounts stated in the subsection shall be paid respectively.

A person shall be appointed.

B. The instant loan claims were successively transferred from the Jeonbuk Bank to the Sejong Asset Management Co., Ltd., the Loyal Capital Loan, the Plaintiff, and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 23, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan of this case was transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no reason for the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. As seen earlier, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claims from the Plaintiff, and thus, the Intervenor’s claim by the Plaintiff succeeding to the Plaintiff is reasonable.

B. As to this, the defendants are the defendants of this case.

arrow