beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.01 2015가단7795

약속어음금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that on September 8, 1987, the plaintiff lent KRW 2,4250,00 to the defendant, and the issuer from the defendant's birth acting for the defendant is obligated to pay 2,4250,000 won to the defendant, the due date of the payment to the defendant, 2, 3,000,000 won per 2,50,000 won per 2,50,000 won per 2,350,000 won, 1,2350,000 won to the defendant, and 2,425,00 won as a promissory note to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's birth did not know that the defendant issued a promissory note to the plaintiff, and even if a promissory note was issued, the claim of this case expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

2. Determination

A. We cannot use the Promissory Notes as evidence for the lack of any evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the Promissory Notes No. 1 and No. 1 to 8 (each Promissory Notes) and otherwise, the Defendant issued each of the Promissory Notes in this case.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's birth on behalf of the defendant has the right to issue a promissory note in the name of the defendant.

B. Furthermore, the period of extinctive prescription of a promissory note issued with a blank maturity shall be three years from the time when the right to supplement the blank can be exercised, and even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff was issued with a promissory note by lending money to the defendant on September 8, 1987, and thus, the plaintiff could have exercised the right to supplement the blank at that time, and even if not, according to the statement of No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, according to the statement of No. 2-1 and Dec. 26, 2005 and Dec. 26, 2005, the plaintiff notified the defendant that he sought payment of the promissory note. Thus, the plaintiff could have exercised the right to supplement the blank at that time. Thus, since the plaintiff could have exercised the right to supplement the blank at that time, it shall be deemed that the period of extinctive prescription has expired due to the expiration of the period of three