beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant entered into a credit card use agreement with the plaintiff on June 20, 1990 and delayed payment of the price by using the credit card issued by the plaintiff around that time. The defendant entered into an exchange loan agreement with the plaintiff on May 30, 2013 with the plaintiff on May 30, 2013, with the principal amount of KRW 5,080,000, interest rate of KRW 22.2% per annum, repayment period of 12 months, delay damages interest rate of 29.5%, and when the defendant lost profits due to the failure to pay the monthly payment two or more times at the time of the above exchange loan agreement, the plaintiff may claim a lump sum payment of the principal and its delay damages to the defendant, and the defendant did not pay the interest rate of KRW 36,376,374,376,374,376,47,20.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 29.5% per annum from February 27, 2015 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 5,934,124 and KRW 4,233,34 among them, unless there are special circumstances.
In this regard, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was unable to pay the credit card price due to the abolition of the credit card using the credit card even though there exists a benefit of time, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and that it is improper to claim interest by calculating the rate of 29.9% per annum. However, the defendant's allegation is without merit since the fact that the defendant agreed to the rate of overdue interest rate of 29.9% per annum in the above substitute exchange loan agreement as seen earlier.
In addition, the defendant alleged that he paid part of the above overdue money, but according to the evidence No. 6, the defendant's real estate B in this court auction procedure as to the real estate owned by the defendant, the defendant distributed 605,086 won to the plaintiff on January 14, 2015.