beta
Text
1. For the plaintiff B:
A. As to Defendant C and D’s joint and several 141,400,000 won and 16,400,000 won among them, May 18, 2008
Reasons
1. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim against Defendant C
A. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, Defendant C is obligated to pay Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 100 million of the Promissory Notes, KRW 100 million of the face value, KRW 100 million of the payment date, KRW 100 million of the payment date, and KRW 100 million of the payment date, and KRW 100 of the payment date, and KRW 100 million of the payment date, barring any special circumstance.
B. As to this, Defendant C has a defense that the instant promissory note gold claim has expired by prescription.
The presentation for payment of a bill payable at sight shall be made within one year from the date of issuance (Article 34(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act), and if no lawful presentation is made within such period, it shall be deemed that the maturity comes due on the last day of such period, and the statute of limitations of the obligations of the bill
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da40352 Decided November 15, 2007. The date of the payment of the Promissory Notes in this case is at sight. As such, the maturity of the Promissory Notes in this case is December 11, 2008, which is one year from December 11, 2007, and the expiration date of the obligation of the Promissory Notes in this case runs from the following day.
However, it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiff A against the Defendant C was filed on June 2, 2015, for which three years have passed since it was filed, and thus, the instant promissory note claim against the Plaintiff A against the Defendant C had already expired.
Therefore, Defendant C’s above statute of limitations defense is reasonable.
2. Determination as to Plaintiff B’s claim for KRW 100 million for loans to Defendant C and D
A. According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff Eul loaned KRW 100 million to the defendant Eul under the defendant Eul's guarantee around 2006 as of July 15, 2006. Thus, the defendant C and D pay a loan of KRW 100 million to the plaintiff Eul, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff Eul.