beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly form the Plaintiff and Defendant Co., Ltd. from December 30, 2014 with respect to the amount of KRW 40 million.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 3 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant Samsung-ri, Inc., Ltd., issued and delivered a promissory note (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”) at the place of payment, which was at the place of payment, on September 29, 2014, at the par value 40 million won, and on December 29, 2014, at the place of payment, at the place of payment, and at the place of payment, at the place of payment (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”), and endorsed as an endorser in this case. At present, the plaintiff held the Promissory note in this case, and thereafter, the plaintiff presented a payment proposal, but it can be acknowledged that the payment was refused due to non-transaction as of December 22, 2014.
According to the above, Defendant P.S. Co., Ltd., the issuer of the Promissory Notes in this case, is jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the holder of the said Promissory Notes, the amount of KRW 40 million, and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act, from December 30, 2014, which is the day following the payment date of the said Promissory Notes, to August 6, 2015; Defendant P.S. Co., Ltd., the delivery date of the instant complaint; 6% per annum under the Commercial Act until March 3, 2015; 20% per annum from the following day to September 30, 2015; and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
(Plaintiff filed a claim for delay damages from December 29, 2014, but the initial date of delay damages falls on December 30, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is partially dismissed). 2. On December 20, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the instant promissory note did not have an obligation to file a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, since the Defendant made an unmortgaged endorsement.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the above defendant made an unsecured endorsement on the Promissory Notes of this case, and the above assertion is without merit.
3.