logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.08.22 2018가단107048
어음금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 20, 2017, Defendant B Co., Ltd. issued an electronic bill with the maturity of the maturity under the former Act on the Issuance and Distribution of Electronic Bills (amended by Act No. 14174, May 29, 2016; hereinafter “Electronic Bills Act”) with respect to F Co., Ltd., Ltd., the payee, as of December 26, 2017, by setting the payment bank as the prudented point of G Bank.

B. On August 18, 2017, F Co., Ltd.: (a) pursuant to Article 7-2 of the Electronic Bills Act, the said electronic bill was endorsed to Defendant C Co., Ltd by dividing the said electronic bill at par to KRW 287,50,105 (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”).

C. On October 10, 2017, Defendant C endorsed the instant electronic bill to E Co., Ltd. (the trade name before the change of Defendant D Co., Ltd.). On October 13, 2017, Defendant C endorsed the instant electronic bill to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 4, 5, 6, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim was endorsed to the Plaintiff via F, Defendant C and E, an endorser, the issuer, and Defendant C and E.

A stock company E is a single company with the same legal personality because it has changed its trade name so the defendant corporation D.

In addition, the Plaintiff received the instant electronic bill through the auditor H and company director I of Defendant D Co., Ltd., and Defendant D also bears the responsibility as an endorser.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the legitimate holder of the electronic bill of this case, the face value of KRW 287,500,105 and legal interest or delay damages therefrom.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant D asserted that the endorsement of the electronic bill of this case was made under the name of the previous company by H, etc.

arrow