대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff alleged that he lent KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant on November 3, 2006, however, it is not sufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.
(E) The Plaintiff’s loan of the above money to C, not the Defendant, in full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire pleadings. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation to C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such fact. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4 above, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with a face value of KRW 50,000 on April 19, 2007, par value of KRW 50,000,000 on the date of payment, June 3, 2007, the place of issue and place of payment, and the Plaintiff’s possession of the said Promissory Notes. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 40,00,000, out of the said Promissory Notes, unless there are special circumstances as the issuer of the said Promissory Notes.
In this regard, the defendant defenses that the above amount claim has expired by prescription.
Pursuant to Articles 77(1)8, 78(1), and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, a claim on a promissory note against the issuer of a promissory note is complete unless it is exercised within three years from the maturity date, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case on November 3, 2014 after three years from the due date of the payment of the said Promissory Notes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim on the amount of the said Promissory Notes has expired.
Therefore, the defendant's above defense is justified.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's claim is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.