logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.26 2016나12310
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 20,072,285 and KRW 6,427,59 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 9,59 on May 9, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 29, 2001, the Defendant entered into an agreement with Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Card”) to join a credit card holder, and delayed the amount of use while being used with a credit card issued from Samsung Card.

B. Since then, Samsung Card transferred the above credit card payment claim against the Defendant to Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Mutual Savings Bank”), notified the assignment of claims, and on December 10, 2009, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank transferred the above credit card payment claim to the Plaintiff again (hereinafter “the above credit card payment claim”), and on May 4, 2010, the Plaintiff, who was delegated the power to notify the assignment of claims by Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, notified the Defendant of the above assignment of claims.

C. As of May 8, 2015, the instant claim for the transfer-price remains in KRW 6,427,59 as principal, KRW 13,64,686, total sum of KRW 20,072,285.

The plaintiff has applied the interest rate of 17% per annum in accordance with Article 11 of the Regulations on the Management of Trusted Bonds of the National Diplomatic Fund for the claims that he acquired from the financial institution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, who acquired the instant claim from Samsung Card in succession, 20,072,285 won and the principal amount of KRW 6,427,59, 17% per annum from May 9, 2015 to the day of complete payment, barring special circumstances.

I would like to say.

In response, the defendant alleged that he did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims, so the notification of the transfer of claims is notified to the obligor that the transferor transferred the claim to the obligor, and the notification is given to the obligor.

arrow