beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. The Defendant Sambu Co., Ltd. issued and delivered the Promissory Notes in Chapter Three (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Promissory Notes”) as indicated in the table below, and the Cheong River Construction by the limited liability company and the Cheongbu General Construction by the limited liability company were endorsed and transferred to the Plaintiff after receiving the Promissory Notes in this case from Sambu Co., Ltd.
The Plaintiff’s payment place at the issue date of the Nos. 190,983,50 on October 1, 2013, 190, 983, 500 on the date when the Plaintiff’s payment was presented at the issue date of the No. 1283, Oct. 31, 2014; and on February 28, 2014, the No. 1287, 450,000 on Oct. 1, 2013, 2013, the No. 25323, 323, 400 on Feb. 3, 2013, the No. 1283, Mar. 31, 2014;
B. On October 10, 2014, ABS Co., Ltd entered into a contract with a limited liability company to acquire all the rights related to the construction project of the 671-4 Won-gu movable property of Jeonjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
In the above acquisition contract (Article 14), AlleyS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ABS”) collected and returned the bill issued by the Defendant, and paid the corresponding amount to a limited liability company if it fails to return it within one month after the completion of the construction work.”
C. During the appellate trial of this case, ABS Co., Ltd. repaid the Plaintiff’s debt with respect to the Promissory Notes and recovered the Promissory Notes.
[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-1, evidence 5-1, 2, and 4-4, and the whole purport of pleadings are revealed that the plaintiff did not possess the bill of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the bill of this case which is not the holder of the bill of this case is without merit without further review.
If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions. Therefore, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed.