beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from February 15, 2014 to July 10, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 30, 2013, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”), the Defendant issued and delivered promissory notes (hereinafter referred to as “instant promissory notes”) at the face value of KRW 40,000,000, and on February 15, 2014, the date of payment, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of payment, and the red control point in Han Bank, Han Bank, the place of payment, and exempted the preparation of certificates of non-payment.
B. B: (a) on November 5, 2013, the instant promissory note was endorsed and transferred to the Plaintiff.
C. On February 15, 2014, the Plaintiff presented the Promissory Notes in the instant case to the red control point in Han Bank, Han Bank, Inc., the place of payment, but the payment was refused on the ground of misappropriation.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the final holder, 40,000,000 won per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from February 15, 2014 to July 10, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes, and 6% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion, etc. (1) B’s representative director C deceiving the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that even though the U.S. Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “U.S. Co., Ltd.”) who leased part of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu D shop (hereinafter “U.S. Co., Ltd.”) was subject to the Plaintiff’s revocation lawsuit, the representative director C, who entered into a joint business agreement on E operated by U.S. Co., Ltd. in the U.S. Co., Ltd. and the above commercial building, had the Defendant issue and deliver the instant promissory note by deceiving the Defendant (new BBC Co., Ltd.). The Plaintiff was aware of all the above circumstances, and therefore,
Domins, B No. 1.