beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,732,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 10, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On September 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on September 4, 2015, the Promissory Notes Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) issued on May 31, 2016 at face value 27,732,00 won; and (b) the due date for payment (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”).
2) On May 26, 2016, the Promissory Notes Co., Ltd. issued the Promissory Notes Co., Ltd. (2) issued the Promissory Notes in sequence to B, and to the Plaintiff.
3) On May 31, 2016, the due date for the payment of the Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff offered lawful presentation for payment, but was denied on the ground of non-transaction. [The description of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings based on recognition No. 1]
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant, as the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the final holder of the Promissory Notes, the amount of KRW 27,732,00 and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 10, 2016 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the Plaintiff, following the delivery date of the duplicate of the Promissory Notes.
2. The Defendant’s argument as to the Defendant’s assertion: (a) agreed to receive the Promissory Notes from the Defendant’s endorser Co., Ltd., but, in collusion with the Plaintiff, endorsed and transferred the Promissory Notes; and (b) accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the act of transferring endorsement is null and void.
However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff, in collusion with the agricultural machinery, was subject to endorsement and transfer of the Promissory Notes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements Nos. 3 and 4, the Plaintiff is recognized as having traded steel products with B and received the bill of this case.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.