logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.06.20 2019가단1048
물품대금
Text

1. Defendant D’s KRW 17,051,958 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from May 5, 2018 to February 20, 2019.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants jointly and severally and severally guaranteed each of the goods payment obligations of the KUE, and submitted the following evidence endorsed by the Defendants in each of the following bills issued by the KUE:

① In the bill of exchange (payment date April 4, 2018), KRW 57,07,037 at par value issued on December 29, 2017, the signature and seal (Evidence 3-1) of the Defendant C in the name of the endorser column (payment date). ② (2) The bill of exchange (payment date June 30, 2018), KRW 15,819,012 at par value issued on March 20, 2018, the signature and seal (Evidence 3-2) in the name of the endorser column of the Defendant C is difficult to find the Plaintiff’s assertion that the signature and seal was affixed on the bill of exchange KRW 17,051,958 (payment date) issued on January 31, 2018, and it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for the signature and seal affixed on the bill of exchange (payment date) in the name of the endorser column of the Defendant C (Evidence 3-3). However, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for the signature and seal attached to C-3.

3. Meanwhile, Defendant D’s signature and seal is deemed to have been signed and sealed by himself, and thus, Defendant D’s evidence No. 3-3 can be recognized as having established the authenticity, which seems to support the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, according to the joint and several guarantee agreement, Defendant D is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 17,051,958 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from May 5, 2018 to February 20, 2019, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

In regard to this, Defendant D argues that it is only a signature or a seal affixed by the Plaintiff’s employees at the time of signing and sealing, and that it is only a signature or seal affixed without any particular consideration.

arrow