(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.22 2017가단257905

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.22 2017가단257905

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the facts of recognition Gap's evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant, on September 28, 200, issued to the plaintiff and non-party C a notarial deed with the purport that "if the payment of the above promissory note is delayed, there is no objection even if there is a delay in payment, it shall be subject to compulsory execution" as the certificate of Dhap Office No. 3836 on September 28, 2000.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion i.e., the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million out of the bill of exchange of this case.

However, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000 around February 2003, KRW 500,000 around March 2005, and KRW 1 million around March 2014, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 48,00,00 to the Plaintiff.

Dor. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the Dor. has expired ten years after the lapse of the statute of limitations, and the plaintiff's claim is improper.

B. The presentation for payment of a bill payable at sight must be made within one year from the date of issuance (Article 34(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act), and if there is no lawful presentation within the said period, it shall be deemed that the due date has arrived at the end of that period and that the extinctive prescription of the obligation of the bill shall run from that time.

Therefore, the maturity of the obligation to pay the bill of this case, the due date of which is determined at sight, shall expire on September 28, 2001 after one year from the date of issuance of the bill of this case, and the extinctive prescription shall run from the following day.

However, the fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 21, 2017, which was three years after the lapse of the three years from the lawsuit, is apparent in the record, and the prescription period for the claim of this case against the defendant was expired.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant paid part of the amount to the plaintiff in 2003, 2005, and 2014 (which seems to have been asserted that the defendant approved the obligation).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is no longer needed.

참조조문

-어음법 제34조 제1항

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.09.10 2015가합2029

-의정부지방법원남양주시법원 2016.09.29 2016가단46

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.03.25 2015가단106653

-인천지방법원 2015.09.16 2015가단43225

-광주지방법원목포지원 2019.06.12 2018가단4114