logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.04.18 2017가단120014
신용카드이용대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s share of KRW 44,527,485 as well as KRW 43,903,20 among the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 27.9% per annum from October 18, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 16, 2001, the debtor approved the credit card individual terms and conditions set by the plaintiff, and concluded a credit card use agreement with the plaintiff, and received the credit card issued by the plaintiff.

B. According to Article 26 of the above Terms and Conditions, credit card holders shall pay the Plaintiff the credit card use fee by the agreed settlement date, and in the event of arrears, the Plaintiff shall pay interest and damages for delay at the interest rate determined by the Plaintiff.

C. From September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff is delinquent in paying credit card bills. Since March 3, 2016, the agreed overdue interest rate of the Plaintiff determined after March 3, 2016 is 27.9% (where arrears is over three months), and on October 17, 2017, the principal and interest of the Defendant in arrears are 44,527,485 won (i.e., principal amount of KRW 43,903,200, interest and delay damages amount of KRW 624,285).

【Ground of recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a credit card payment of KRW 44,527,485 as well as damages for delay with an agreed interest rate of KRW 27.9% per annum from October 18, 2017 to the date of full payment.

The defendant asserted that the credit card use price of this case was originally used by the corporation (B) operated by the defendant, and that it was converted to the credit card use price of the defendant's individual at the plaintiff's request due to the lack of financial resources of the corporation, and thus, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable. However, such circumstance alone alone does not constitute a legal ground for refusing the plaintiff's claim.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.

arrow