beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact of recognition reveals that the Defendant issued two promissory notes in the face value of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff with the payment date, place, recipient, publishing date and place in blank, and one of them (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) as to the Plaintiff’s payment date, payment date, “Plaintiffs,” “Yyeong-gun,” “Yyang-gun,” “Syang-gun,” “Date of Issuance”, “Seoul Seodaemun-gu,” and “Seoul Western Seodaemun-gu,” are indicated in the place of publication as “the Plaintiff’s payment date, payment date,” and the entire pleadings.”
2. The parties' assertion
A. On October 3, 1992, the Plaintiff leased a house from the Defendant, but became a first-class director, and did not receive a refund of KRW 30 million. Around February 10, 1994, the Defendant issued five copies of a promissory note with the face value of KRW 9.5 million to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant would pay the face value of the bill. In the end, the Plaintiff was in bankruptcy and became the obligor of the bill.
Around August 2009, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, taking into account the lease deposit and the amount equivalent to the above lease deposit and the amount of the promissory note, and issued two copies of the promissory note as above. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 50 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff holding the Promissory Notes.
B. The Defendant paid the security deposit to the transferee of the above leased deposit claim from the Plaintiff, and paid the payer for the non-performing bill five copies of the non-performing bill to the Plaintiff so as not to cause damage to the Plaintiff.
The Promissory Notes issued by the Defendant, around October 2008, pursuant to the agreement to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff when the Defendant introduced an attorney-at-law as to the lawsuit from the Plaintiff and won in the lawsuit. The reason why the Promissory Notes were issued by the Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff was also demanding preliminary use in preparation against the Plaintiff’s error of entry.
It was lost in the above civil procedure.