The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, who is the holder of a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) issued by the Defendant in an electronic form, claiming the performance of the above promissory note claim and the damages for delay arising from the delay in the performance thereof, and the first instance court accepted all of its claims.

Since the defendant appealed only for the part accepting the claim for damages for delay in the first instance judgment, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited.

2. The grounds of appeal and the facts that the Plaintiff’s payment of the Promissory Notes in this case was refused due to the Defendant’s report of acceptance of the settlement of the Promissory Notes, as the final holder of the said Promissory Notes, on or around March 31, 2019, which was the due date for the payment of the said Promissory Notes, but was presented to the bank at the place of payment (CFD branch

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from April 1, 2019 to April 24, 2019, which is the day following the due date for the payment of the face value of the Promissory Notes, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “it is not a direct monetary loan contract with the Plaintiff, but a receiver of the Promissory Notes of this case did not perform the obligation as the cause of the issuance of the said Promissory Notes, and the Defendant’s deposit at the bank at the place of payment of face value and filed a report on acceptance of the said Promissory Notes, the rate of delay damages by 12% per annum is too excessive.” However, such assertion does not constitute a justifiable reason for refusing

3. The conclusion of the first instance judgment is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.