beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly combine the Plaintiff with KRW 200,000,000, and with respect thereto, the period from September 22, 2016 to December 20, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 23, 2016, Defendant Han Chang-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han Chang-chul”) issued one electronic bill (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”) with a face value of KRW 500 million in face value, KRW 500,000,000 on September 21, 2016, the date of payment, KRW 21,000,000, the place of payment (bank), and the payee C&C (hereinafter “Defendant C&C”).
B. On June 23, 2016, Defendant C&C made an endorsement of the electronic bill of this case against the Plaintiff, which divided the electronic bill of this case, with a total of KRW 200 million each, in total, KRW 100 million, and thus exempted the Plaintiff from drawing up a protest for refusal of payment.
C. Although the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal on September 21, 201, the payment was refused due to non-transaction on September 21, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, Defendant Han Chang-gu, the issuer of the instant electronic bill, and Defendant C&C C&C, the endorser of the instant electronic bill, are jointly obligated to pay jointly the Plaintiff, who is the last holder, the amount of KRW 200 million and the following day after the date of presentment of payment for the said amount of the bill from September 22, 2016 to December 20, 2017, as the Plaintiff seeks, 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.
3. Defendant Han Chang-chul's assertion on Defendant Han Chang-chul's assertion that the electronic bill of this case was issued by Defendant Han Chang-chul with a bill discount affixed through A, and it did not provide funds with a bill discount affixed to A. Therefore, Defendant Han Chang-chul did not have a duty to pay the amount of the bill of this case to the Plaintiff.
Even based on the above argument by the defendant Han Chang-chul, this is a personal defense.