약속어음금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1 to 3, Eul evidence No. 3 and 7, and the purport of the whole arguments.
A. The Plaintiff received a promissory note with the seal affixed by C and D companies’ representatives (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) from C on January 18, 2012, the date of publication, September 18, 2012, and September 18, 2012, and the issuer’s column. Accordingly, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10 million on January 5, 2012, and KRW 3 million on November 11, 2012, and KRW 7 million on the same month to C.
B. After receiving the Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff stated C and the Defendant’s name, resident registration number, address, and amount in the issuer’s column.
C. Meanwhile, from the beginning of December 2010, the Defendant permitted the use of the Defendant’s name when C is operating a D Company.
2. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to pay the amount of promissory note to the plaintiff as the issuer of the promissory note in this case. Even if it is not a domestic affairs, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of promissory note to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act or Article 756 of the Civil Act as the
3. Determination
A. First of all, the determination as to the claim for the payment of the Promissory Notes is based on the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the Defendant as the issuer of the Promissory Notes in question, the records of this case, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, (i) C merely borrowed money from the Plaintiff and affixed the seal of the representative of the D Company, which is substantially operated by the Plaintiff, and did not state the Defendant’s name in the Promissory Notes in this case or affix the seal bearing the Defendant’s name; (ii) the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the personal account in the name of C; and (iii) the Plaintiff and C continued to engage in money transactions for about one year from January 25, 201 to the time of issuance of the Promissory Notes. In light of such circumstances, the Plaintiff is a D Company.