약속어음금
1. The Defendants jointly combine with the Plaintiff KRW 27,000,000, and the Defendant Co., Ltd. with respect thereto from October 30, 2014.
1. The facts following the facts are: (a) the above Defendant deemed to have led to confessions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant New Fungchi Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Fungchi”); and (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Inc., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nungchisan”) may either have no dispute between the parties, or may be found in view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of subparagraphs 1-1 and 2, respectively.
In order to be supplied with a tax product from the Plaintiff and pay the price for the said product, Defendant New Pung Pung made an endorsement on the following promissory notes (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) issued by Defendant U.S. and delivered the said notes to the Plaintiff.
(1) Bill No. : B Sheet No. 27,00,000 won ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? the addressee on September 30, 2014 : C Representative A
B. On October 2014, the Plaintiff endorsed to the Promissory Notes in this case and transferred it to D.
C. D The payment was made on the date of the payment of the Promissory Notes in this case, but was rejected on the ground that the Promissory Notes was reported to be accepted.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid a bill to D to perform its duty of recourse, and recovered the Promissory Notes.
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the issuer of the Promissory Notes in this case and the Defendants, the endorser, are obligated to jointly pay the amount of the Promissory Notes in this case to the Plaintiff.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s Oil Products, the instant promissory note is deemed null and void due to the lack of continuous endorsement. As such, the Defendant’s Oil Products issued the instant promissory note with the Plaintiff as the addressee. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, who is not the addressee, issued the said Promissory note with the endorsement of the Plaintiff. However, the said assertion as to the holders of the promissory note acquired it after the lack of continuous endorsement is set aside.