채무부존재확인
1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s liability for promissory notes stated in the separate sheet against the Defendants does not exist.
2...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff had Defendant B on March 3, 2011 and the same year.
4. On 27. 27. Each of the Promissory Notes listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the Promissory Notes”) was issued, and Defendant B endorsed each of the Promissory Notes to the Nam-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Nam-gu”).
B. Defendant Southern-gu: July 25, 201 and the same year
8. 25. Although each of the instant notes was presented to the Central Branch of Gyeongnam Bank Co., Ltd., the payment was refused on the grounds of default.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to Articles 77(1)8 and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act as to claims, the extinctive prescription is completed unless the right to claim against the issuer of a promissory note is exercised within three years from the maturity date. The expiration date of each of the instant notes is July 25, 201 and the same year.
8. Since it is apparent that three years have passed from 25.25, the extinctive prescription for the claim against the Plaintiff, who is the issuer of the Defendants, was completed.
In regard to this, Defendant B notified several times prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription to repay the above obligation under each of the instant bills, and the Plaintiff and his wife promised to repay the above obligation. However, the peremptory notice does not have the effect of interrupting prescription if a judicial claim, seizure, provisional seizure, etc. is not made within six months. However, on July 7, 2014 of the Civil Act, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B took measures, such as a judicial claim, etc. for the interruption of prescription, within six months from the date when the notice was given to the Plaintiff on July 7, 2014, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff approved the above obligation to Defendant B, such as promising the performance of the obligation. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B’s aforementioned defense has been justifiable.
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to each of the bills of this case.