beta
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
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Card”) on September 22, 2003: (a) on June 10, 2006, the due date for payment of KRW 5,642,667 to B; (b) on June 10, 2006, the loan interest rate of KRW 25.2%; and (c) the overdue interest rate of KRW 29% (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (d) around that time, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation of KRW B (hereinafter “instant joint and several guarantee”).
B. On September 29, 2009, the instant loans claim against Samsung Card C (including all the rights incidental to the instant loans, such as principal, interest, and provisional payment) were transferred in sequence to the Defendant on April 26, 201, immediately to the Investment Securities Co., Ltd. on April 26, 201, to the Emympi loan asset management limited company on May 2, 201, and to the Plaintiff on October 8, 2015.
C. As of April 12, 2017, the balance of the principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 15,457,664 (= principal principal KRW 4,521,743 or damages for delay).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 8, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 26, 2017 to the date of delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, as claimed by the Plaintiff, as to KRW 15,457,64 in the balance of the principal and interest of this case and KRW 4,521,743 in its principal, barring special circumstances.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that since Samsung Card was not notified to the defendant of the transfer of the claim for loans of this case, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
In addition, as seen earlier, the notification of the transfer of the claim of this case was given, and even if not, the notification of the transfer of the claim could have been recognized by social norms.