beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 6, 2010, the Defendant (the title at that time was “Stock Company C”), the representative director D and E of the Defendant Company jointly issued and delivered to F copies of Promissory Notes (hereinafter “each Promissory Notes of this case”) comprising the respective addressees’s wifes, G on October 6, 2010, each of the respective payment dates, and each of the payment dates as of January 15, 201, and the Seoul City as of January 15, 201, respectively, and the place of payment, with the face value of KRW 240 million, face value of KRW 260 million, and face value of KRW 360 million (hereinafter “each Promissory Notes of this case”).
B. G: (a) around March 15, 2015, the Plaintiff became the final holder of each of the instant promissory notes, by means of endorsement and transfer, without exempting the Plaintiff from the obligation to make up a certificate of non-payment refusal.
【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1 through 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. The assertion and judgment
A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion of each of the parties’ claim against the Defendant, who is the issuer, as the holder of each of the Promissory Notes in this case, claiming for payment of the aggregate of KRW 600 million in face value of each of the Promissory Notes in this case and damages for its delay, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s claim for payment of the amount of each of the Promissory Notes in this case was to be made by D, which was the representative director of the Defendant, as if he borrowed KRW 600 million from F, as if he borrowed KRW 600 million from F, and there is no causal relation between F and the Plaintiff’s issuance of each of the Promissory Notes in this case. The Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the Promissory Notes in this case
B. (1) According to each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. (1) 1 through 6, F, upon request of D, participated in the market price manipulation of the shares issued by the Defendant Company and suffered loss from trading the shares issued by the Defendant Company. The representative director D of the Defendant Company agreed to pay the F with the amount of KRW 60 million in order to compensate for the loss.