beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 82,50,000 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 20, 2018 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 8, 2018, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) issued and delivered to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) at the location of the place of payment and the place of payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) at the location of the corporate bank located in the main office of the bank. As to this, Defendant C on March 20, 2018, Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant D”); Defendant D on April 10, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff transferred to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) in sequence on April 11, 2018.
B. E, as the final holder of the instant bill, presented a payment proposal at the maturity to the branch office of the company bank in the U.S. branch office, but was rejected. The Plaintiff exercised its right of recourse against the Plaintiff, thereby paying the instant bill to E on June 30, 2018, and recovered the instant bill.
[Based on the recognition] Defendant B, D: Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act; Defendant C: The absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, 2(a) and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, who are the issuers and endorsers of the Promissory Notes, are jointly liable to pay to the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes, the amount of KRW 82,500,000 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 20, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the last delivery of the copy of the Promissory Notes Claim sought by the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant C’s assertion and judgment asserted that Defendant C would be supplied with goods from Defendant D, and that Defendant C could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the instant bill was endorsed and transferred, but Defendant D did not supply the said goods.
The act of killing and tampling, and the act of bills is an unmanned act, which is the acceptance of bills.