logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.02 2016가단72311
약속어음금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 110,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from May 24, 2016 to July 13, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1.

On February 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a check number of KRW 110,00,000 at par value, KRW 21-24, 25, 25, and one unit number (hereinafter “the check number Ma029242”) at the Industrial Bank of Korea’s three-dong branch (hereinafter “the check of this case”) and delivered it to Nonparty MexicoT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the company abroad”).

B. On May 23, 2016, Nonparty Company: (a) endorsed and transferred the instant checks to the Plaintiff without any date; and (b) on May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff presented the instant checks to the Plaintiff, but was denied payment on the grounds of the Defendant’s report

C. The Plaintiff currently holds the check of this case.

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts found in the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, the drawer of the instant check, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the holder of the instant check, the amount of KRW 110,000,000, and legal interest and delay damages therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The judgment of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant and the non-party company will settle the check without being bound to do so on or around February 12, 2016, because they were deceiving the non-party company's deception that they would lend the check to the non-party company. However, the plaintiff, a financial company, could have known that the check of this case was not issued in order to guarantee the repayment of normal sales claims if he had paid little attention at the time of acquiring the check of this case. Thus, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case.

On the other hand, the Defendant’s above assertion is known to the effect that the Plaintiff would be detrimental to the Defendant in order to be exempted from the Defendant’s liability for payment due to his personal defense under the Check Act.

arrow