(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.01.22 2019가단10906

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.01.22 2019가단10906

어음금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 75,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from June 15, 2019 to January 22, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On February 13, 2019, the Defendant issued an electronic bill (bill E; hereinafter “instant bill”) with the face value of KRW 473,000,000 at face value, KRW 473,00,000 on June 14, 2019, and the place of payment, KRW 14,00 on June 14, 2019, and the place of payment, KRW 75,000,000 upon the division of the instant bill, was transferred to the Plaintiff via endorsement between D and F, and the Plaintiff was refused to pay the instant bill due to lack of deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the final holder of the Promissory Notes, the amount of KRW 75,00,000, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, from June 15, 2019, which is reasonable for the Defendant to resist the scope of the obligation to perform, until January 222, 2020, and from the next day to the day of full payment, from the next day, to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant issued the bill of this case without any causal relationship with the defendant for financing purposes, and G and H, etc. involved in the issuance of the bill of this case divided and distributed the bill of this case without any discount from the financial institution pursuant to an agreement with the defendant, and the plaintiff also knew such fact and could have acquired the bill of this case.

The defendant's assertion constitutes a personal defense against the other party to the bill, and in order to oppose against the holder of the bill on his personal grounds, the holder acquires the bill with the knowledge that it would prejudice the debtor. There is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff acquired the bill with the knowledge that it would prejudice the defendant in this case.

Rather, from Gap 2.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

-어음법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.01.22 2019가단10906

-제주지방법원 2019.04.26 2018가단64032

-대전지방법원논산지원 2017.05.18 2017가단233

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.24 2018가단16094

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.20 2018가단5068410