logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.23 2016나5823
매매대금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The net C, under the trade name of “E” (the nominal owner of the business registration appears to have been the spouse) in the D market large 216, the Plaintiff supplied the headquarters to the Defendant.

The plaintiff is a person who worked in E as an employee.

B. At around April 1998, the Defendant issued two copies of household checks of KRW 5,00,000 at par value (Issuance Date: June 15, 1998 to June 28, 1998) to the net C for the payment of the original amount.

In May 198, the Defendant paid KRW 1,500,000 to the net C around July 14, 1998 and around July 20, 1998 in order to recover the checks.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 9, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that he operated the business with the network C in the same business, and settled the same business after the death of C in 2006. The Plaintiff received 10,000,000 won out of the total credit amount of KRW 18,00,000 from the Defendant as a household check and delivered it to the business partner, but repaid it as an endorser due to the Defendant’s default, and recovered it.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the money for goods or checks to the plaintiff.

3. The fact that the Defendant was supplied with the original unit while engaging in the transaction with the network C, the fact that the Plaintiff was a simple employee of the network C, as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a direct transaction relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant issued two copies of household checks of KRW 5,00,000 at face value to the net C for the payment of goods. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was receiving them, and even if the Plaintiff was entitled to seek reimbursement of the domestic check, the check must be presented for payment within 10 days from the date of publication (Article 29(1) of the Check Act).

arrow