beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,236,100 and the interest rate thereon from January 25, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant CMaz. (hereinafter “Defendant CMaz”) issued a check with a face value of KRW 15,236,100, and a check number B (hereinafter “the check of this case”). Defendant A endorsed it on the check of this case, and the Plaintiff, which was final possession thereof, presented a payment proposal to the National Bank East Asian Media Branch on August 19, 2014, but refused payment due to lack of deposit.
B. Defendant CMaz issued a check with a face value of KRW 15,00,000, and a check number of KRW 15,000 (hereinafter “the check of this case”) and Defendant A endorsed on the check of this case, and the Plaintiff, who became final possession of this, presented a payment proposal to the National Bank East Asian Media branch on October 24, 2014, but was refused payment on the ground of non-transaction.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant Co-Maz and the Defendant A, the drawer of each of the instant checks, are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 30,236,100, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 25, 2015 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
3. Defendant CMaz asserts that Defendant CMaz did not have any obligation to pay the instant check since it actually used the instant check money as it is Nonparty D. This is nothing more than the personal defense against the Plaintiff, who is a legitimate holder of each of the instant checks, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant checks with the knowledge that the Plaintiff was detrimental to Defendant CMaMazz, the drawer, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was acquiring each of the instant checks with the knowledge that it would prejudice Defendant CMazz, the drawer. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant CMaz is without merit.
4...