beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
B. The defendant
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 25, 2002, the Defendant concluded a general loan agreement with Korea-China Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Korea-China Mutual Savings Bank”) prior to bankruptcy engaging in credit business, setting the rate of 54.75% per annum, the credit limit amount of KRW 5,00,000 per annum.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
As of January 23, 2003, the principal of the instant loan was KRW 1,455,900, and has not been repaid until now.
C. Korea Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.
Since then, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in Changwon District Court Msan Branch, and this case was conducted by public notice, and on April 16, 2008, "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,455,900 won and the amount at the rate of 54.75% per annum from January 23, 2003 to the day of full payment."
E. On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred to the Intervenor’s Intervenor the instant loan the amount of KRW 1,455,900 with respect to the loan principal and interest accrued at the rate of KRW 54.75% per annum from January 23, 2003 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the instant loan claim”), and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim on March 19, 2014, and the said notification was delivered to the Defendant around that time.
F. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor submitted an application for intervention in succession to the trial court on August 21, 2015, and the said application was presented at the first date for pleading of the trial court.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff initially asserted that the Defendant had the claim stated in the claim purport as the cause of the instant claim.
However, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to the Defendant is as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff did not hold the said claim any longer.