beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's primary claim corresponding to the above revoked part is revoked.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of scambling tools with the trade name of "C," and the defendant is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business such as machinery tools, etc. with the trade name of "D
The plaintiff transferred his endorsement to the defendant on November 3, 2008: (a) the date of issuance; (b) the face value 35 million won; (c) the check number E; (b) the date of issuance on December 10, 2008; and (c) the face value 35 million won; (d) the check number F; (c) the check number ; (d) the check number G number ; (d) the date of payment; (e) the check number ; (e) the check number ; (v) the check number ; (v) the check number ; (v) the face value 35 million won; and (v) the bill number H (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant check and bill”).
[Based on the basis of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (if there are serial numbers, each number is included) and the plaintiff's claim as to the primary claim of the entire pleadings was paid KRW 106,940,00,000, which deducts the amount of discount from the amount of KRW 137,091,296, 296, 24,704, 24,700,000 in total, after receiving the check and the bill of this case endorsed by the defendant, and agreed with the defendant at the rate of 2% to 2.5% or 2.5% per month.
After that, the Plaintiff delivered the instant checks and bills to Daegu Tech in lieu of the Plaintiff’s repayment of the Plaintiff’s goods payment obligation, and the Daegu Tech presented the instant checks and bills to the Bank in the place of payment, but its payment was refused due to the cause of default. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 137,00,000 to Daegu Tech and recovered the instant checks and bills.
At present, the rights of the checks and bills of this case are extinguished by the completion of the extinctive prescription, and the Defendant, who is the endorser, exempted the obligations on the checks and bills of this case from the obligation on the face value and showed interest equivalent to the face value. Thus, the Defendant, as the legitimate holder of the checks and bills of this case, presented the