beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 180,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from December 9, 2014 to January 9, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition No. 140,000,000 won 140,000,000 from the place of payment at par value, and the place of payment at issue on May 16, 2013, 2013, Plaintiff 2140,000, 1122-7, the Industrial Bank of Korea Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, 16, 2013, and 1122-7, the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant promissory notes”) is the Plaintiff’s two promissory notes (hereinafter “each of the instant promissory notes”).
(2) On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff issued and delivered the Promissory Notes, and the Plaintiff currently holds each of the Promissory Notes. (2) The Plaintiff supplemented the issue date of each of the Promissory Notes to “ January 17, 2013,” and presented the payment to the Defendant on December 8, 2014 by serving a copy of the application for change of the cause of the instant Claim.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 7-1 and 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The supplement of a blank bill can be exercised even after the date of payment, and in the event a lawsuit claiming the amount of the promissory note is instituted against the issuer, who is the principal debtor, the right to supplement shall be exercised only until the date of closing argument (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da41812, Jun. 9, 195). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff offered a payment proposal for each of the Promissory Notes in which the issue date was supplemented as a copy of the application for change of the cause of the instant claim prior to the date of closing argument of the instant case. As such, the Defendant, as the issuer, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 18
2. The defendant's assertion and defense
A. First, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff issued and received each of the Promissory Notes from the Defendant on the pretext of partial repayment of the loan, but the act of lending the Promissory Notes does not exist at all. Thus, if the Plaintiff’s assertion is followed, each of the Promissory Notes of this case did not have any act of causing it. Thus, the Plaintiff