beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 31, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff supplied the original unit, etc. to the Defendant by October 30, 2014, and the fact that the balance of the goods price claim, such as the original unit, as of the date of the closing of argument, is 27,00,000,000, may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the evidence set forth in subparagraph 1 (including the additional number) through 3, either there is no dispute between the parties or the parties.
B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the above goods price of KRW 27 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 31, 2015 to the day of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff, on the following day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served, as requested by the plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that “The instant claim for the price of the instant goods was extinguished, as a promissory note claim against C on December 5, 2014 was transferred to the Plaintiff.”
B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the serial number), the Defendant’s transfer of a promissory note amounting to KRW 27,000,000, which was owned by C on December 5, 2014 may be recognized.
However, barring special circumstances, it is not reasonable to presume that a debtor transfers another claim to a creditor in relation to the repayment of obligation by means of a security for repayment of obligation or by means of repayment, barring any special circumstance, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the original claim is extinguished if the assignment of obligation is made. Since the creditor receives the repayment of the assigned claim, and the debtor is exempted from liability within the scope of the obligation, barring special circumstance, there is an obligation to assert and prove the existing obligation with respect to the repayment of the transferred claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1660, Dec. 22, 1995).