(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.06.12 2015가단9204

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) 전주지방법원 2015.06.12 2015가단9204

어음금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 as well as its annual 6% from February 12, 2012 to February 26, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 13, 2011, the Defendant issued promissory notes with the face value of KRW 60,000,000 at face value, and the due date of February 11, 2012 at the payment place and the payment place, and the Plaintiff is the final holder of the said promissory notes.

B. The Plaintiff presented the payment of the Promissory Notes at the place of payment and the place of payment within the due date, but was rejected as a cause of default.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant, who is the issuer of the above Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as the holder of the above Promissory Notes the amount of KRW 60,000,000 and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from February 12, 2012 to February 26, 2015, which is the day following the payment date of the above Promissory Notes, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

I would like to say.

In regard to this, the defendant lent the above promissory note to the non-party B, and the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above promissory note, while it is alleged to the effect that the defendant does not have the obligation to pay the above promissory note, it cannot be asserted as a matter of principle against the person other than the direct transaction party, as a personal defense that can be asserted only between the direct transaction parties. There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff acquired the promissory note with the knowledge of the existence of the reason for personal defense, thereby cutting the defense by acquiring it, and that the debtor acquired it with the knowledge that there is objective reason for damages.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

-어음법

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가단60464

-서울북부지방법원 2016.02.04 2015가단120700

-대구지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가단13816

-부산지방법원 2015.04.14 2014가단253787

-전주지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단13388