beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants of the Plaintiff corresponding to the following amount ordered to be paid.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 15, 2011, E issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a notarial deed of promissory note No. 517, 2011 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”), which was written by a notary public’s office, No. 517, 201, at the face value of KRW 170,000,000 for the Plaintiff, the payee, the place of issuance, and the place of payment, respectively, at the payment, at the sight, at the payment date, the issuer, E, the Defendants, and F (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).
B. On June 8, 2015, based on the instant No. notarial deed, the Plaintiff received an order to seize and collect deposit claims against Defendant D’s new card company, etc. (Seoul Eastern District Court 2015TY 7375; hereinafter “instant seizure collection order”), and collected KRW 33,759,000 among them.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, as joint issuers of the Promissory Notes, are obligated to pay the remaining amount of KRW 10,741,000 (i.e., KRW 4,450,000 - KRW 33,759,00) and damages for delay as claimed by the Plaintiff, the holder of the Promissory Notes, jointly with E, as joint issuers of the Promissory Notes in this case. (ii) The Plaintiff is liable to seek damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act for the period from June 8, 2015, which is the date of the instant seizure collection order, to the date of delivery of the duplicate of the instant
The responsibility for delay in the payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes arises only when a lawful presentation of payment is made (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da94797, Apr. 8, 2010). There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, made a lawful presentation of payment to the Defendants and caused delay of payment.
Therefore, the claim for damages for delay until the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case is rejected.
B. Determination 1 on the Defendants’ assertion, etc.