logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가단19367
약속어음금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from May 23, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff, on January 21, 2015, received an electronic bill issued by the defendant on April 22, 2015 from the defendant, with the amount of KRW 35,00,000,00, and with the maturity of April 22, 2015. Although the plaintiff presented a company bank to pay the above bill on April 22, 2015, it can be recognized that the payment of the bill was refused on the ground of legal restriction (provisional attachment, seizure, preservation of property, provisional disposition for payment suspension). Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 35,00,000 and the payment delay damages calculated on the basis of the following day after serving the original copy of the payment order in lieu of the delivery date of the complaint as the plaintiff's request, at the rate of 20% per annum from May 23, 2015 to September 30, 15.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant alleged that the defendant agreed to repay when normalizing with the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant issued the bill by the method of payment for the purchase of the apartment site from double development of the limited liability company and delivered it to the plaintiff designated by the limited liability company. However, since the sales contract for the apartment site was by deception, the defendant's above sales contract is revoked by deception, and since the plaintiff is aware of such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot seek payment for the amount of the bill against the defendant as the person who acquired bad faith, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

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

arrow