beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32.5 million and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 13, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant borrowed money from C and prepared six copies of the loan certificate as follows.
The following date of the repayment of the borrowed amount on August 4, 2006 (200 million won on September 4, 2006) 20 million won on August 25, 2006 (2006)
9. Oct. 16, 2006 KRW 10 million on Sep. 7, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 2006) on Oct. 7, 2006, KRW 10 million on Oct. 23, 2006, KRW 16,000 on Oct. 23, 2006, KRW 16,000 on Oct. 16, 2006, KRW 25 million on Dec. 16, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 2006) shall be May 2, 2006.
C around January 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the above loans to the Defendant and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above loans at that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's judgment on this safety defense is defense that C has no obligation against the plaintiff and filed the lawsuit in this case by taking the form of transferring the claim to the plaintiff for the convenience of lawsuit, and thus, Article 7 of the Trust Act applies mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim is not a trust under the Trust Act, and the main purpose of this lawsuit is to be determined in light of various circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the assignment of claim, interval between the transfer contract and the filing of the lawsuit, and the personal relationship between the transferor and the transferee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da8628, Sept. 12, 2013). In light of the witness's testimony and evidence No. 2, it is insufficient to recognize that C transferred each of the loans in this case to the plaintiff with the main purpose of enabling the plaintiff to conduct litigation, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Thus, the defendant's defense is not acceptable.
3. The above-mentioned facts and the witness C in the judgment on the merits.