청구이의
All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff (the representative C) issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 1.3 billion at the face value as of February 29, 2008 (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”).
B. On February 25, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed stating that “When the issuer of the Promissory Notes in this case delays the payment of the promissory Notes to the bearers of the Promissory Notes, it shall be recognized that there is no objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution.”
C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million on August 14, 2008 and KRW 50 million on August 14, 2009 to the Defendant with a partial repayment of the Promissory Notes in this case. D.
On February 24, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of KRW 154,931,506 (6% per annum from March 1, 2008 to February 23, 2010 as to the principal of the Promissory Notes of this case) and damages for delay (2010 Ghana Branch Court Decision 2010No.1505). On May 14, 2010, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on the non-litigation that entirely accepts the Defendant’s claim, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
(hereinafter “this case’s judgment”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant promissory note was issued without any substantial cause, and the Plaintiff’s act of causing the Plaintiff to stand joint and several surety with respect to the issuing of the said promissory note and the personal debt of C is null and void since the Defendant was well aware of the abuse of C’s power of representation.
In addition, the defendant had already received KRW 50 million from the plaintiff without disclosing such fact, and the judgment of this case constitutes abuse of rights as a malicious action.
Therefore, the above ruling is based on.