수표금
1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 and it.
1. On November 10, 2015, when the independent party interventions in the instant case ex officio in determining the legitimacy of the request for intervention by the independent party, the health room for whether the request for intervention by the independent party is lawful, and the independent party interventions in the instant case may continue to proceed with the lawsuit between others. Since it is apparent in the record that the independent party intervention filed an application for intervention by the independent party on November 10, 2015, after the pleadings in
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. Basic facts 1) The Intervenor joining the Defendant on July 24, 2015, issued by the Defendant (the branch of this Area) on July 22, 2015, the amount of KRW 60 million, the place of publication, and the place of payment: Seoul, the drawee: the Defendant (the branch of this Area), the check number: the check check issued by the Defendant (the check of this case): The check issued by the Defendant C (the check of this case).
(2) On the same day, the Plaintiff deposited the instant check to the new bank (the branch of the bank) on the same day, and the said bank notified the Plaintiff on the 27th day of the same month that it was refused to pay the instant check on the ground of the receipt of the accident report, and the Plaintiff holds the instant check.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. 1) In light of the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the instant check amounting to KRW 60 million and damages for delay claimed by the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s Intervenor’s assertion that the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor paid the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 5 million after deducting the overdue rent from the lease deposit amounting to KRW 15 million. The Defendant’s Intervenor’s assertion that the Defendant and the Intervenor paid the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 5 million. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant issued the check to the Plaintiff by misunderstanding the number of the instant check amounting to KRW 60 million at face value, and the Defendant’s allegation that the Defendant issued the check to the Defendant immediately reported the accident to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted