beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from August 1, 2014 to July 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant issued and delivered promissory notes with the face value of KRW 100,000,000 at face value, and the due date on July 31, 2014, Daejeon Metropolitan City at the place of payment, Daejeon Metropolitan City at the place of payment, NongHyup Bank at the place of payment, and the payee.
B. The Plaintiff presented the payment of the said Promissory Notes within the due date and at the place of payment, but was rejected on the ground of “taking away”.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant, the drawer of the above bill, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the payee, 100,000,000 won the above bill and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from August 1, 2014 to July 21, 2015, which is the day following the due date for payment, 20% per annum prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
I would like to say.
(1) The Plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint in this case to the day of complete payment. However, the Plaintiff’s interest rate of 20% per annum until September 30, 2015 and the interest rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to the day of full payment pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Encouragement, etc. of Legal Proceedings amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015; and the Plaintiff’s interest rate of 20% per annum from September 30, 2015 to October 1, 2015 is without merit. Accordingly, the Defendant is the Defendant’s form C, and there is no direct real transaction with the Defendant. However, it appears that the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of bills even if they do not directly.