[약속어음금청구사건][하집1987(3),413]
Requirements and Amount of recourse prior to the maturity of a Promissory Notes
Although the due date of a promissory note has not yet arrived, another promissory note issued or endorsed by the issuer of the said note has not been paid on the due date, and as well as on the due date, the amount of the promissory note shall be the amount of detention calculated by deducting the interest accrued at a rate of 6% per annum from the due date for the payment of the promissory note, if it is deemed that the said promissory note has significantly decreased the certainty of payment at the due date in light of the circumstances such as changes in the trade name or trade name, officers, and the head office, etc. between four years and four years.
Articles 43, 48, and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act
Mad Madro
Ship Owner General Construction Company
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,11,462 won with 2,268,00 won with 25% per annum from May 21, 1987 to the date of full payment, 3,843,462 won with 6% per annum from May 21, 1987 to the date of full payment, and with 6% per annum from May 21, 1987 to the date of full payment.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. Five minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff.
4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,073,00 won with 25% interest per annum from May 21, 1987 to the date of full payment.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution
In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (each promissory note surface and back) and the whole purport of the oral argument in the testimony of the above witness Kim Jae-k's testimony, the defendant (the original Korea Construction Promotion Corporation, but the original Korea Construction Promotion Corporation was changed from the original comprehensive construction, etc., and the current owner comprehensive construction corporation was changed) issued two copies of promissory Notes No. 1 in the attached Table No. 1 to the plaintiff on January 16, 1982. Meanwhile, the non-party Won Won Co., Ltd. issued four copies of promissory Notes No. 2 to the defendant on July 1, 1983. The defendant can be acknowledged that the defendant exempted from the preparation of each payment refusal certificate and transferred them to the plaintiff without any counter-proof.
First of all, the defendant asserts that a promissory note stated in the separate sheet No. 2 was endorsed by the non-party who has no legitimate power of representation as the representative director of the defendant company, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above argument is groundless. The defendant asserts that the validity of a promissory note stated in the separate sheet No. 1 and in the separate sheet No. 2 No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet cannot be complied with the plaintiff's claim since the expiration of the validity of the validity of the promissory note No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 2. 31 in the separate sheet No. 1 in the previous sheet No. 1 in this case. 33 years from the maturity of the maturity of the claim against the issuer of a promissory note under Articles 77 and 70 in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet
Then, the defendant asserts that a promissory note in Schedule 2 (3) and (4) is not acceptable to the plaintiff's claim since the due date has not yet arrived, so it is clear that the due date for the payment of a promissory note in Schedule 2 (3) and (4) has not yet arrived on December 29, 1987 and December 28, 1988. However, according to the above evidence, the promissory note in Schedule 1 (3) and (2) of the issuance of the defendant and the promissory note in Schedule 2 (1) (2) of the issuance of the defendant are not paid at each due date, and the defendant company has not paid each due date ten (10) and more than 10 (10) since it can be recognized that there has been changes in the name, executive, and the head office of the defendant's credit has been de facto and the payment of a promissory note in Schedule 2 (3) and (4) of the attached Table 2 (3) has been significantly decreased. Thus, the plaintiff's previous suit is justified.
Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,187,106 won (2,268,00 won of the Promissory Notes No. 2,268,00 and 6% per annum with the fair discount rate up to maturity (3) of the attached Table No. 2,187,106 (2,268,000 x 1/60 x 225/365) of the attached Table No. 2, and 1,656,356 (1,817,00 x 1/60 x 1/600) of the attached Table No. 2) of the attached Table No. 2 of this case's 6,111,462 won and 2,268,000 won which are calculated by deducting the amount at the rate of interest of 6% per annum of the attached Table No. 3 of this case's 9.2,268,000 won and the remaining amount of damages for delay shall be paid to the defendant 2518.3,25.18.
Judges Egradro