beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 7, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to do painting work on the outer wall and rooftop of the building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant painting work”) and to settle the price according to the consumption of paint, and completed the painting work on August 12, 2012.
B. Around September 10, 2012, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the amount of KRW 8.2 million, the issue date August 7, 2012, and November 10, 2012, the payment date.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendant, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, which is the primary cause of the claim, is obligated to pay the instant Promissory Notes and damages for delay to the Plaintiff, the payee.
B. The Defendant is obligated to pay 8.2 million won for the instant painting work and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.
3. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 8.2 million won per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the date of the first instance judgment, until February 13, 2014, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay the Promissory Notes from November 22, 2013, following the date on which the Promissory Notes in this case was presented to the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes, to the date of full payment.
The Plaintiff also claimed damages for delay from November 11, 2012, which is the day following the date of the payment of the Promissory Notes, to the date of delivery of the duplicate of the Promissory Notes. However, there is evidence to deem that the Plaintiff lawfully presented the Promissory Notes to the Defendant prior to the delivery of the duplicate of the Promissory Notes.