beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly joined the Plaintiff KRW 129,950,000 and 6% per annum from February 1, 2018 to April 27, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 21, 2017, Defendant B Co., Ltd. issued to Defendant C a bill number of K, face value of KRW 500,000,000, and due date, January 31, 2018; and the electronic bill, which became a point of interest in the corporate bank of payment banks (hereinafter “the instant bill”).
B. After the split of the Promissory Notes, KRW 129,950,00 out of the face value of the Promissory Notes (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) was endorsed in sequence by Defendant C Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff through Defendant D, E Co., Ltd., Ltd., F, G, H, I, and J, and the Plaintiff currently holds the Promissory Notes.
C. On January 31, 2018, the maturity date, the Plaintiff presented the instant bill to an enterprise bank, but was refused to pay as a non-transaction, and confirmed the payment rejection electronic document by the Financial Settlement Board, the managing agency of electronic bills, was notified of the non-payment refusal.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4, the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is presumed to be a lawful holder of the Promissory Notes. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, and the remaining Defendants, who are the endorsers of the Promissory Notes, are obligated to jointly pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 129,950,000 per annum from February 1, 2018, the day following the due date of the Promissory Notes to April 27, 2018, which is the last delivery date of the Promissory Notes, and 6% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
3. Determination on Defendant H’s defense
A. Defendant H merely allowed L to use an authorized certificate under Defendant H’s name, as he paid off the money borrowed by L, and did not confer the right to endorsement on the bill of this case. However, L without the authority.