약속어음금청구
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 33,916,160 as well as 6% per annum from February 1, 2018 to August 2, 2018 and the next day.
1. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:
On October 30, 2017, the Defendant issued promissory notes (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) of C, which was on January 30, 2018, and on January 30, 2018.
B. Voluntary Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Voluntary Development”) received and endorsed the Promissory Notes in this case.
The Plaintiff received the Promissory Notes from Jinhan Development Co., Ltd., and holds them.
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the holder of the Promissory Notes, the amount of KRW 33,916,160, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from February 1, 2018 to the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to
The Defendant lent the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff, and Jindo Development delivered the Promissory Notes upon the Plaintiff’s request for the discount of the Promissory Notes. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the Promissory Notes did not pay discount and did not return the Promissory Notes.
However, the grounds for the defense alleged by the Defendant are related to the underlying relationship of the Promissory Notes, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff, who received the Promissory Notes from the advanced development of the Promissory Notes, acquired the Promissory Notes in this case with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Defendant, who is the debtor of the Promissory Notes. Thus,
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.