logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2018나77199
양수금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 12, 201, the Defendant borrowed from Nonparty C Bank (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) an agreement of KRW 29,600,000 at a rate of 26.9% (in the event the Defendant fails to repay the principal and interest, at least 10% and maximum 11% shall be applied according to the period of delinquency) with a view to equal installment repayment of the principal and interest for 48 months.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) a loan claim under the foregoing agreement by Nonparty Bank. B

Since then, the Defendant did not pay the principal and interest, and as of April 18, 2018, the remaining principal and interest of the instant bonds are KRW 18,693,240 of the remaining principal and interest, and KRW 53,387,603 of the total of KRW 72,080.843 of the remaining principal and interest.

C. On January 21, 2015, Nonparty Bank transferred the instant claim to Nonparty D Limited Company, and the said Company once again transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff on December 8, 2017, and the notice of transfer was issued at the time of each transfer.

[Ground for Recognition: Descriptions of Evidence A Nos. 1 through 4]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of 34.9% per annum with respect to the remaining principal and interest of the instant claim KRW 72,080,843 as well as the remaining principal and interest of KRW 18,693,240 as to the Plaintiff from April 19, 2018 to the date of full payment.

B. On July 2014, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation (Tgu District Court 2014 Ma16816), and obtained immunity in accordance with the repayment plan. However, the Defendant asserts to the effect that it is unreasonable to seek full payment without considering such circumstances, even though the Defendant did not notify the Defendant of the existence of the instant claim even the Plaintiff or the transferee of the instant claim before the Plaintiff or the transferee of the instant claim, thereby resulting in an unfair result that the Defendant could not receive the adjustment of the claim amount of the instant claim.

The debtor's rehabilitation and rehabilitation;

arrow