beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs steel processing business, etc.
C The term "D (hereinafter referred to as "D")" is mutually registered as a steel wholesaler, and the defendant is the husband of C.
B. Two promissory notes issued by the Defendant E (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) are: (a) one electronic bill of KRW 196,50,000 per face value (hereinafter “first bill”) and one electronic bill of KRW 78,200,000 per face value (hereinafter “second bill”) among those divided into five electronic bills issued on May 27, 2015; and (b) both electronic bills are endorsed in order of G, H, I, J, J and C.
In addition, KRW 40,00,000 in cash was delivered as the price for goods, and D (C) supplied steel products equivalent to KRW 187,230,617 in total around May 29, 2015, and steel products equivalent to KRW 127,719,671 in total around June 22, 2015.
C. The Promissory Notes was disposed of on October 31, 2015, the maturity date of which was due.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Promissory Notes in this case are the financing bills issued merely for the purpose of raising funds without supplying steel products.
With the knowledge of these circumstances, the Defendant, in collusion with K of J, concluded that the Promissory Notes of this case were supplied to the Plaintiff with steel products, and that the Promissory Notes of this case were received in advance, and that they would be settled without a basis for maturity.
The plaintiff believed the defendant's horse and supplied steel products as above. This is a tort against the plaintiff.
Even if the Defendant did not know the fact that the Promissory Notes was a financing bill and did not make such a false statement to the Plaintiff, the Defendant, despite being aware that the Promissory Notes would be treated as the price for the goods, was delivered to the Plaintiff.