beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly construct 55,000,000 won and its related amount, from May 14, 2014, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A, around January 2014, issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) as of May 13, 2014, the amount of which is KRW 55 million for free construction costs to be paid to the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff’s KRW 55 million, the issuer Dae Young Steel Co., Ltd., the Bank of Korea’s place of payment, and the due date for payment.
The first endorsement has written and affixed the entry and seal of the defendant Han River Construction Co., Ltd. and the second endorsement Co., Ltd. (the transfer name of the defendant Jinan Construction Co., Ltd.).
B. On March 12, 2014, there was a disposition of suspension of transactions against Tae Young Steel Co., Ltd.
The Plaintiff presented a payment proposal on May 13, 2014 of the Promissory Notes, but was rejected due to non-transaction.
[Ground] Defendant Jan Construction Corporation: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3) of the Civil Procedure Act); Defendant Janan Construction Corporation: Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as above, the Defendants, who are the endorsers of the Promissory Notes, are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the holder of the Promissory Notes, the amount of KRW 55 million, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, from May 14, 2014 to March 31, 2015, the day following the payment date, to the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes, to the Defendant Jan Construction Co., Ltd., and 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, from May 14, 2014 to October 24, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes from May 14, 2014 to October 24, 2014, respectively, as requested by the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Defendant Jinan Construction Co., Ltd, the issuer of the instant promissory note, concluded that it would return the promissory note, and used it without deleting endorsement.