(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나540

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나540

어음금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant supplied the goods of the amounting to KRW 19,00,000 from the Plaintiff and delivered, on February 12, 2015, a promissory note constituting KRW 19,000,000 to secure the payment thereof. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said promissory note amount to KRW 19,00,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. According to the overall purport of the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, the defendant was supplied with the plaintiff with a 7,000,000 won of contract processing clothes from October 2014 to April 2015. Meanwhile, in order to guarantee the payment of the price for the contract processing clothes being supplied as above, the defendant delivered a promissory note to the plaintiff on February 12, 2015, stating "19,000,000 won of contract amount, and March 31, 2015" (hereinafter "the Promissory Notes of this case") to the plaintiff on March 12, 2015. The defendant prepared a notarial deed No. 233 of the deed No. 2015, Feb. 12, 2015 to recognize the compulsory execution of the Promissory Notes of this case. Accordingly, according to this, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above amount of 700,000 won and damages for delay in its payment.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff made a coercion against the defendant by illegally occupying the materials such as the plaintiff's original body, etc., and thereby, made a delivery of the Promissory Notes to the plaintiff and made a full repayment of the price for the above processed clothes. However, each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (each opinion) that seems consistent with the defendant's argument is difficult to believe, and otherwise, the defendant issued the Promissory Notes by the plaintiff's coercion.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to support that he paid the full amount of the above processed clothes.

Therefore, the defendant is from April 1, 2015, which is the day following the payment date of the Promissory Notes in this case, to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2013.08.30 2013고단2444

-서울고등법원 2016.03.17 2014나13404

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.12 2016가합553268

-서울동부지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가단26263

-서울동부지방법원 2019.01.10 2018고단2292