(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.10.25 2018가단5526

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) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.10.25 2018가단5526

차용금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the defendant issued to the plaintiff a promissory note as stated on June 19, 2007 with a face value of 50,000,000, the due date of June 20, 2008, a promissory note as stated on June 26, 2007, the face value of 40,000,000, and the due date of payment as stated on June 26, 2008 (hereinafter "each promissory note of this case"), and it is recognized that each promissory note of this case was prepared and issued to the plaintiff.

2. As to the plaintiff's filing of a claim against the defendant for the payment of the total amount of KRW 90 million of each of the Promissory Notes in this case, the defendant asserts that the statute of limitations for the above Promissory Notes

The extinctive prescription of a claim on a promissory note against the issuer is complete unless it is exercised within three years from the maturity date (Articles 78, 77(1)8, and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act). The fact that the due date of each of the instant promissory notes was June 20, 2008 and June 26, 2008 is as seen earlier, and that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 4, 2018, since it is apparent that the Plaintiff had filed the instant lawsuit on July 4, 2018.

I would like to say.

As to this, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant in the judgment of bankruptcy against the District Court Decision 2015Hadan1362, 2015Ma1363.

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted by a notarial deed on a separate loan, other than the instant promissory note payment, is suspended. However, it cannot be deemed that the extinctive prescription of the claim for a promissory note payment was interrupted solely on the grounds alleged by

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-어음법 제70조 제1항

-어음법 제77조 제1항 제8호

-어음법 제78조

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.30 2016가합100738

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.02 2016가단5036839

-수원지방법원여주지원 2016.08.24 2016가단2255

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.04 2018나68928

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.10.10 2019가단3439