Extinctive Prescription of a Promissory Notes

If a promissory note is refused to pay at maturity and Eul, the endorser, redeems the bill to the last holder and redeems the bill, the right of recourse against Eul, who is the preceding endorsement, shall expire six months from the date of redemption by Eul, and this legal principle shall also apply where Eul transfers the bill to another person by means of endorsement after the due date.

Articles 70 and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

For the purpose of time:

Woo-young

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 35,600,000 won with the amount of 18,000,000 won from May 1, 1986; 8,000,000 won from May 11, 1986; 6% per annum from May 21, 1986 to February 4, 198; and 25% per annum from February 5, 198 to each full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 45,400,000 won with an amount of 18,000,000 won from March 29, 1986 to 1986 to 18,000,000 won with an amount of 9,60,000 won with an amount of 25 percent per annum from May 11, 1986 to 19,60,000 won.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

(1) On November 29, 1985, 198.1 to 6.6 of the above Promissory Notes No. 1 to 1 to 8.6 (each of the above Promissory Notes No. 1 to 1 to 9.6 (each of the above Promissory Notes No. 1 to 8.6) was issued by the non-party 1 to 6. The above Promissory Notes No. 2 to the non-party 1 to 6.1 to 8.1 to 1 to 6.1 to 6. The above Promissory Notes No. 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 6.0, 198. The above Promissory Notes No. 2 to the non-party 1 to 6.1 to 6.1 to 9. The above Promissory Notes No. 2 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 6.2 to 1 to 1985. The above Promissory Notes No. 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 30.6.2 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to be paid.6.2 to 1 to 1 to

First, the defendant's assertion that although the defendant paid each of the above promissory notes to the non-party Kim Jong-soo as the price for the goods, the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim since he did not receive all the goods from the above Kim Jong-soo, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Then, the defendant asserts that the claim for a promissory note gold under paragraph (1) of the above paragraph has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and thus, the maturity of the promissory note under paragraph (1) above is the date of March 28, 1986, and the number of the above Kim Jong-dae, the fact that the above Kim Jong-dae, the redemption of the promissory note on June 1, 1986, transferred it to the plaintiff on March 12, 1987 is as set out above. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on December 29, 1987, and it is apparent in the record that the claim for a promissory note gold gold claim under paragraph (1) of the above paragraph against the defendant, who is an endorser, has expired unless the above Kim Jong-dae was exercised within six months from the date of redemption of the promissory note under paragraph (1) above. Thus, the above claim for a promissory note gold claim has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription on June 1, 1986.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 35,600,000 won (10,000 + 8,000,000 + 8,000,000 + 6,500,000 + 3,100 + 3,000 + 18,000,000 among them (10,000 + 8,0000 + 8,0000,0000), which is the following day of the payment, from March 29, 1986; for gold eight thousand,00,000,000, the following day of the payment, from May 11, 1986 to 8,000 (6,50,0000 +3,10,000 +3,000 + 3,100,000) and the remaining amount of damages for delay shall be paid within the limit of 9.25% per annum of the bill of this case from May 21, 198, 1986, respectively.

Judges Kang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)