logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.10.14 2015가단1764
약속어음금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 73,50,000 as well as 20% per annum from January 29, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, on January 10, 2015, issued a promissory note number C, par value C, KRW 73,500,000, and due date on January 10, 2015 (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”). Nonparty D endorsed on the said Promissory Notes, followed the Plaintiff’s receipt of the Promissory Notes, and presented payment on the date of payment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the last holder of the Promissory Notes, with the face value of KRW 73,500,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 29, 2015 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserted that: (a) the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the Promissory Notes, as it was ① received the Promissory Notes from Nonparty E; or (b) issued only the Promissory Notes regardless of transaction between E and the Plaintiff.

First of all, it is insufficient to find that E had the face value of the Promissory Notes Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 merely based on the statements in the above argument, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise. Even if the fact that E had the face value of the Promissory Notes was recognized, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff unless the Plaintiff was aware of this fact, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff acquired the Promissory Notes even with the knowledge of the face value, and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Next, as to the above argument, the bill acts can be claimed regardless of the fact that the plaintiff actually paid the bill amount to E because of the principle of circulation protection.

arrow