beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant concluded a credit card membership contract with a foreign exchange credit card company and used the credit card.
B. A limited liability company specializing in the 3rd foreign exchange card system, which acquired the above credit card payment claims, applied for a payment order against the defendant as Seoul Western District Court 2004Ka9501. The above court ordered the creditor to pay 24% per annum from January 13, 2004 to the delivery date of the payment order of this case (e.g., May 10, 2004) and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The above payment order was finalized on May 25, 2004.
C. On March 12, 2004, a limited liability company specializing in Esteglurllion Card (hereinafter “Esteglion Card”) notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above claim on May 24, 2004 after transferring the above claim to Busan 2 Mutual Savings Bank. The Plaintiff acquired the above claim through a decision to transfer contracts made by the Financial Services Commission on August 26, 201, and the said decision was publicly announced in daily newspapers around that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10,460,55 won and 4,072,450 won among them with 24% per annum from January 13, 2004 to May 10, 2004, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
The Plaintiff asserted that the principal and interest of the above claim was KRW 19,095,727 as of February 27, 2014, and claimed for the payment of the above amount and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum. However, there is no evidence to support that the overdue interest rate per annum is 25% per annum. Therefore, the part exceeding the amount recognized in the above payment order is rejected.
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is partially accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff is unfair, and the defendant is also dismissed.