beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff; Defendant B shall pay KRW 30 million and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 12, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
(a)In full view of the facts without dispute, the entries or shapes of Gap evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged:
The Defendants are construction business operators, and they were subjected to a discount from the Plaintiff in order to prepare the construction cost.
In order for the Plaintiff to receive discount of a bill, the Defendants conspired with D, the contractor of the work, to receive endorsement from D, and thus, the Defendants paid KRW 20 million out of the discount amount to the Defendant C on February 3, 2010, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to H on February 4, 2010, the remainder of the promissory note in the name of the issuer, the issuer’s representative director G, and the Defendant C affixed “D” on the back of the promissory note in the name of the endorser’s name. On February 3, 2010, the Plaintiff delivered the said promissory note to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2010, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million out of the discount amount to H on February 4, 2010.
On the other hand, Defendant C prepared a promissory note No. 6.66 million won on January 22, 2014 for the Plaintiff to repay the discounted amount paid to H, and a promissory note No. 4 million won on March 21, 2014.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid to H as well as KRW 10 million upon the request of Defendant C, and the Defendants’ aforementioned illegal acts are deemed to have suffered losses equivalent to the discounted amount paid, which the Plaintiff believed to have genuine endorsement (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da6164, Aug. 24, 1993). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly liable to pay damages to the Plaintiff for tort and pay damages for delay from the date following the delivery of the complaint filed by the Plaintiff (Defendant B, August 12, 2016; Defendant C, June 9, 2016) to the Plaintiff as well as after the date of illegal acts (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da6164, Aug. 24, 1993).
The plaintiff is 13.7 million won out of the face value of 43.7 million won in a warden.