beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.09.08 2014가단128226

어음금

Text

1. Defendant A and Defendant B jointly share KRW 56,749,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from December 5, 2013 to December 2014.

Reasons

1. The description of the grounds for claim and the changed grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Judgment based on each deemed confession as to the claim against Defendant B and C (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. According to the facts that there is no dispute over the determination of the cause of the claim (1) and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, Defendant A issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) dated August 31, 2013 with the face value of KRW 56,749,00, and the due date of December 5, 2013, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of payment, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Bank of Korea, the Bank of Korea, the place of payment, the payee B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), the due date of the issuance, the Promissory Notes (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”), the promissory Notes (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”), the issuance date of which was August 31, 2013 exempted from the preparation of the certificate of non-payment refusal, and the Promissory Notes was endorsed and transferred to the Plaintiff on December 5, 2013, the date of payment of the instant Promissory Notes, but refused payment due to a non-transaction.

(2) Accordingly, Defendant A, in collaboration with Defendant B, who is an endorser, has a duty to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 56,749,00,00, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from December 5, 2013, which is the date of payment of the bill of this case until November 10, 2014, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. (A) Determination on Defendant A’s assertion (A) asserts that the instant bill was issued by Defendant A while selling clothes, which is the actual operator of Defendant B, and Defendant A did not obtain any economic benefits, and Defendant A was issued a non-prosecution disposition by the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office, and thus, Defendant A did not have any obligation to pay the said bill.

(B) Determination on the basis of the bill, the financing bill refers to the bill received by another person for the purpose of having another person obtain financing from a third party by the bill, and the issuer of the financing bill.