beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant, from around 194 to May 1, 1999, was in office as a director of the C Co., Ltd. who works for the civil engineering construction business, etc., and actually operated the said company with her husband F. (2) The Defendant, on June 14, 200, stated that the promissory notes amounting to KRW 15,000,000 at face value will be settled once a month after the month of the discount. The Defendant received at a discounted rate of KRW 15,00,000 at face value from the Plaintiff, and received at a discounted rate of KRW 13,50,000 at face value (bill number D, issuer C Co., Ltd., and now on July 14, 200).
3) On June 23, 200, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff would settle a promissory note of KRW 11,000,000 at par value at a discount of 1 month, and received KRW 9,900,000 at a discount of 11,00,000 from the Plaintiff (bill E, issuer C Co., Ltd., and due date of payment July 23, 2000) on a discount of 11,00,000 at face value. (B) The Defendant’s repayment agreement 1) C Co., Ltd. failed to pay each of the instant promissory notes to the Plaintiff by the due date, and on November 29, 2001, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate with the effect that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 26,00,000 in installments by June 30, 2003.
(A) However, the defendant failed to pay the above KRW 26,00,000 until June 30, 2003. On November 17, 2006, the defendant again drafted a loan certificate with the purport that the plaintiff will pay the above KRW 26,00,000 to the plaintiff by dividing the amount up to March 31, 2007 (Evidence A 1). D. The defendant's criminal final judgment against the defendant was affirmed on September 11, 2007, despite the fact that the defendant received the discount of the bill from the plaintiff even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the discount of the bill, the defendant received the discount of the bill from the plaintiff on September 11, 2007 (No. 2007Da114, the Jeonju District Court Decision 2007Da114, the above judgment became final and conclusive without the ground for dispute as to September 19, 207 (No. 19).