beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 4,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from February 7, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, as indicated below, presented the instant check to the Defendant around April 2013 while possessing a cashier’s check (hereinafter “instant check”) in the face value of KRW 44,00,000 issued by the Defendant.
[mark] Issuance Number 1,00,000 won C 1,00,000 won 1,000,000 won 1,000,000 won 1,000,000 won 1,00,000 won 1,00,000 won 1,00,000 won 1,00,000 won for issuance of face value on April 24, 2013
B. However, on April 25, 2013, H, the representative of the Intervenor joining the Defendant, filed a report on the loss of the instant check and an accident report, and the Defendant rejected the payment of the instant check to the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff currently holds the check of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 (including paper numbers), Eul 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In the event that the check in this case is liable to pay the check, the holder of the check can exercise his right on the check solely on the fact that the check is a bearer’s cashier’s check, and it does not require proof as to what real interests he has.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 44,00,000 for the face value of the check and delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 7, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.
B. The Defendant’s Intervenor’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion was issued by the Defendant for the performance of the obligation to return the lease deposit against the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the Plaintiff was not a legitimate obligee to return the lease deposit against the Defendant’s Intervenor, despite that the Plaintiff was not a legitimate obligee to return the lease deposit from the Defendant’s Intervenor I, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s assertion was against the Defendant’s will and the I.