beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 25, 2012, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) requested the Plaintiff to discount the bill number D, face value 82,060,000, issue date, October 10, 2012, and February 2, 2013, the first endorsement is made. The Defendant, who is a employee of C, issued the second endorsement and issued the said bill (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff, holding the Promissory Notes, claimed the payment of the Promissory Notes, but rejected the payment.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff primarily lent 82,060,000 won in face value at 80,000,000 won in discount of the Promissory Notes to C, and the defendant endorsed the Promissory Notes to the purport of joint and several liability. Thus, the defendant asserts that he is liable to pay the plaintiff the loan amount of 82,060,000 won and damages for delay thereof. In addition, the defendant asserts that he is liable to pay the plaintiff the loan amount of 82,060,000 won and damages for delay. Since the representative E and the defendant take a discount of the Promissory Notes by deceiving the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff damages amount of 80,000,000 won and damages for delay
B. Determination 1) In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement of the evidence No. 1 (written confirmation), the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that, on March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed not to exercise all claims regarding the Defendant’s endorsement of the Promissory Notes of this case, it is deemed an agreement to bring an action against the Defendant. However, there is no interest in the protection of rights in the lawsuit of this case brought an action against it. 2) Since the Plaintiff prepared the evidence No. 1 (written confirmation) to the Yellow-gu, and the Plaintiff said that he was aware of the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not have reached the Defendant’s declaration of intent as stated in the said written confirmation, and thus, it was not effective.