logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.11.17 2016가단20411
약속어음금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from April 16, 2016 to July 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant (former: Mad Co., Ltd.: Mad Co., Ltd.) endorsed the amount of 100,000,000 won at par value, 15 April 15, 2016 at maturity, which was issued on December 9, 2015, to the electronic bill of this case (hereinafter “electronic bill of this case”) dated 16 at a financial institution’s real calendar point, 02051209582790 (hereinafter “electronic bill of this case”).

B. On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the holder of the instant electronic bill, proposed the payment of the Promissory Notes to the said financial institution, but was refused on the ground of non-transaction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant, who is the endorser of the electronic bill of this case, whose payment has not been made at maturity, is obligated to repay the amount of KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff, who is the holder, and interest thereon, unless there are special circumstances.

3. On the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff was promised to pay the amount of the bill to the non-party company, the final endorsement of the electronic bill of this case, the defendant did not have the responsibility to pay it to the non-party company. The defendant endorsed the electronic bill of this case to the non-party company for the purpose of repaying the non-party company's obligation to pay the price for the goods to the non-party company. Since the non-party company transferred the claim for the cause to the non-party company to a third party, and the defendant did not bear the obligation to pay the amount of the bill to the non-party company, if the plaintiff knows such circumstance,

The obligor is jointly liable pursuant to Article 47 and Article 77(1)4 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. Thus, joint liability is not extinguished due to the other obligor’s undertaking of performance, and the time when the non-party company notified the Defendant of the transfer of the goods price claim is the time of notification of the transfer of the goods price claim to the Defendant on January 10, 2017.

arrow