logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.25 2017나70184
양수금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The defendant was loaned KRW 8,00,600 from Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Tsung Card") around February 26, 2001, and KRW 5,000,000 around February 15, 2005, respectively.

On April 10, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Samsung Card for the acquisition of the claim for the above loan (hereinafter “instant claim”) and around that time, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above claim.

The damages for delay, etc. up to December 26, 2016, applying the interest rate of 15% per annum on the instant claim, shall be KRW 27,676,890 in total.

[Grounds for recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on Samsung Card, and the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the ground of claim purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case from Samsung Card totaling KRW 40,677,490 (=total principal amount of loans totaling KRW 13,000,600, and interest and delay damages up to December 26, 2016) and the principal amounting to KRW 13,00,60,000 among these amounts, as seen below from December 27, 2016 to the extent of the defendant's obligation to perform as follows, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until September 14, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day after the date of the judgment of first instance, which is the date of full payment, to the date of full payment.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant acquired the claim for loans against the Defendant from Samsung Card Co., Ltd. in addition to the acquisition of the instant claim from Samsung Card Co., Ltd., and sought payment from the Defendant. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was liable for the repayment of loans to the new card Co., Ltd., as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is rejected.

The defendant's defense is judged, and the above loans are interest claims.

arrow