logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.26 2014나68289
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 26,591,163 among the Plaintiff and KRW 8,057,915 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 26,59,163, May 28, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2001, the Defendant subscribed to the credit card (hereinafter “LG Ra/2030 Bic S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

B. On April 10, 2009, Lone Card Co., Ltd. was merged with the new card Co., Ltd., and the new card Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff (former Mutual Credit Counseling and Recovery Fund) on April 10, 2009, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the power to notify the assignment of claims from the said company and notified the Defendant of the said transfer by content-certified mail.

C. As of May 27, 2014, the Defendant’s obligation for the credit card payment remains in total of KRW 14,261,698 interest of KRW 14,580,334 with interest on the unpaid amount of credit card use, and KRW 1,796,217 with interest on the principal of the loan as of KRW 3,952,914 with interest on the aggregate. The Plaintiff applies an annual delay compensation rate of 17% pursuant to Article 11 of the Credit Counseling Fund Trust Business Regulations within the scope of the initial agreed delay compensation rate between the Defendant and the new credit card company.

[Ground of recognition] Class A 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from May 28, 2014 to the date of full payment, with the amount of KRW 26,591,163 (=6,261,698 Won 14,580,334 Won 1,796,217 Won 3,952,914) and the principal amount of KRW 8,057,915 (=6,261,698 Won 1,796,217).

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below to cancel this and order the payment of the above money.

arrow