beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly joined the Plaintiff KRW 38,534,651 as well as Defendant B, from May 18, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 26, 2017, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) issued and delivered to Defendant C an electronic bill composed of KRW 97,680,00 at par value, KRW 97,680,00 on May 2, 2017, KRW 2017, and KRW 38,534,651 (hereinafter “instant bill”) from the face value of the said electronic bill, and the date of payment, Daegu, and the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”). On February 9, 2017, Defendant C exempted Defendant C from the duty of protesting and transferred the said electronic bill in installments to the Plaintiff.
B. On May 2, 2017, the instant bill was endorsed and transferred by the Plaintiff, and D Co., Ltd. presented a payment proposal for the instant bill, but refused payment due to non-transaction.
C. The Plaintiff recovered and possessed the bill of this case from D Co., Ltd.
[Ground of recognition] Defendant B: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act): Defendant C: The absence of dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the allegations and the above facts of determination, Defendant B is the issuer of the Promissory Notes. Defendant C is obligated to jointly pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 38,534,651 of the Promissory Notes and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from May 18, 2017 until January 20, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes, as claimed by the Plaintiff, as the result of the expiration date of the Promissory Notes, to the Plaintiff, unless there are any special circumstances. Defendant C is obligated to pay the legal interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act until November 20, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes, and each of the following day to the date of full
As to this, Defendant C did not have any transaction with the Plaintiff, but Defendant C asked the Plaintiff to make payment on behalf of the Plaintiff in excess of the limit of the issuance of bills, and Defendant C did not bear the responsibility of bills, and the Plaintiff was aware of such fact.