(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.09.11 2014가단39777

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.09.11 2014가단39777

약속어음금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly combine with the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000, and with respect thereto, the period from September 21, 2014 to March 14, 2015.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Defendant Company: (a) issued one promissory note, the face value of which was 50 million won or more in 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff offered to pay the promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) within the period for which the payment was made but the payment was refused; and (c) if the entire purport of pleading is added to the statement in Gap’s statement, the payment date on the front side of the instant promissory note shall be deemed to be, “Seoul-do, 2014; (d) the payment date shall be deemed to be, “Seoul-do; (e) the payment place shall be deemed to be, “Seoul-do,” “Seoul-do,” and the payment place shall be deemed to be, “CD”; and (e) the place specified in the issuer’s name (see Article 2(4) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act) and the fact that there exists several “an endorsement” as shown in the separate sheet.

2. Determination on both arguments

A. According to these factual relations, the beneficiary column of the Promissory Notes in this case appears to be "selectively" as the joint receiver, and it appears that one of them is continuous in the first endorsement on the face of the Promissory Notes by endorsement as the first endorsement. Since there is a formal endorsement in the face of the Promissory Notes in the face of the Promissory Notes, the endorsement shall be deemed to be continuous regardless of the forgery of the endorsement, and there is no legal defect in the third endorsement in the Defendant B's name thereafter.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s endorsement is presumed to be a lawful holder of the Promissory Notes in the form of continuous series. Therefore, the Defendant Company, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, and Defendant B, the third endorsement, are jointly obligated to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant Company issued the Promissory Notes against Defendant B, etc. on the ground that such issuance was made.

참조조문

-어음법 제2조 제4항

유사 판례

-대법원 2012. 3. 29. 선고 2010다106290,106306,106313 판결

-광주지방법원 2014.07.15 2014가단1558

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.08.12 2014가단25621

-대법원 2000. 12. 8. 선고 2000다33737 판결

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.06.25 2014가단36614