beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance is revoked.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,986,40 and shall pay to the plaintiff the full amount from May 27, 2003.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 18, 2002, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) extended a loan of KRW 2,00,000 to the Defendant with the interest rate of KRW 131.4% per annum, annual interest rate of delayed damage rate of KRW 160.6% per annum, and due date of payment on July 18, 2007 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement” and the total amount of the loan principal accordingly was hereinafter “the instant loan”). (b) The Defendant delayed the repayment of the instant loan from May 27, 2003, and the instant loan remains in KRW 1,986,400 as of the same date.
(c)
C On August 31, 2007, D Co., Ltd. (after January 7, 2008, E Co., Ltd.), on December 22, 2009, and on August 1, 2014, its trade name was changed to G Co., Ltd.
Along with D (hereinafter referred to as “D”), D transferred all of the instant loans to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”) on September 7, 2007, and H on February 22, 2014, respectively.
On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the transfer of each of the above claims by sending the content-certified mail.
(d)
H filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the amount of the transfer income under this court’s 2009 A lawsuit 2846217. On March 18, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,998,772 and the amount of KRW 1,986,40 per annum 48.54% per annum from August 19, 2009 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “former judgment”). E. The Plaintiff applied for a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Seoul Central District Court’s 2019Hu465233 on October 29, 2019 for the extension of the prescription period of the instant loan claims, but the instant case was impossible to serve on March 13, 200.
[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 15, the records clearly, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, who acquired the claim for the loan of this case, shall raise objection to the plaintiff.