약속어음금
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 5, 2016 to July 11, 2017.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff issued, on January 21, 2015, a promissory note with the face value of 40,000,000, and the due date of February 20, 2015, respectively, which became Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the place of issue, the place of payment, and the place of payment, and then prepared and executed a notarial deed with the certificate of promissorysory note No. 14, 2015
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as an issuer of the above Promissory Notes, is obligated to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40,000,000 as well as damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from October 5, 2016 to July 11, 2017, which is the date following the day on which a copy of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant.
(A) The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the day following the due date for the payment of the said Promissory Notes, but there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff presented the said Promissory Notes to the Defendant at the due date, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is without merit).
As to this, the defendant's argument is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above amount was fully repaid.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.