beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,849,315 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 12, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
On August 16, 2013, the Defendant issued and delivered promissory notes in blank (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) to A (hereinafter “A”) on August 16, 2013, including KRW 100,849,315 at par value, and January 31, 2014 at the payment date, and the address of the Industrial Bank of Korea, the address of the payment, the addressee, the place of payment, and the place of issue.
A on February 3, 2014, the bill of this case was presented to the defendant in blank, but payment was refused.
After that, A’s representative director B made endorsement on the endorser “B” and then delivered it to the Plaintiff on May 28, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the above-mentioned facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant, who is the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes to the plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As to the assertion of the deficiency in the requirements for a bill in blank, the Defendant asserts that the Promissory Notes contains the name of the person to whom the payment is to be made or the person to be made to be made, and that the Promissory Notes in this case are omitted, and that the Promissory Notes in this case are not valid bills due to the omission
In a case where a promissory note was delivered to the other party without a blank space as to the name of the person to whom the payment was to be made or the person to whom the payment was to be made is to be made, it is reasonable to presume that the bill was issued with intent to supplement the name of the person to whom the payment was to be made or the person to whom the payment was to be made, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da1646, Oct. 11, 196). Thus, the Plaintiff has the right to supplement this, and according to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff can acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff supplemented the payee.