beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's rehabilitation debtor B corporation at the request of the plaintiff that was changed in exchange in this court.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. B Co., Ltd. issued one copy of an electronic bill (bill No. C) with a maturity of KRW 100,000,000 as of July 6, 2017, and as of September 30, 2017, and divided the amount into two copies of a promissory note with a maturity of KRW 50,000,000 as of the same day.
B. One of the foregoing divided bills (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”) was issued as the payee on July 6, 2017. On the same day, D Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “E”), Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”); on July 17, 2017, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”); and on September 4, 2017, endorsed and transferred in succession to the Plaintiff.
C. On July 20, 2017, Company B reported the instant accident on the ground of e-mail at GY branch, and the Plaintiff offered payment proposal for the instant electronic bills to the final holder, but was in default on October 10, 2017.
B Co., Ltd. filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2018 Gohap10024, and the above court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures with respect to B Co., Ltd. on November 22, 2018, and thereafter, the Defendant transferred the instant litigation procedures to the court.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1, Eul No. 2-1, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff, the final holder of the instant electronic bill, for which endorsement has been continued, shall be deemed to legally acquire the right to the instant electronic bill, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff asserted that the former endorser was an agricultural company H Co., Ltd., the Defendant is not continuous endorsement of the instant electronic bill, or that both E and F, the Plaintiff’s former endorser, were not a legitimate holder of the instant electronic bill, and thus, the Plaintiff did not acquire the right to the instant electronic bill and whether it has bona fide acquired it is a matter. However, the issuance of the electronic bill, which prescribes the method of endorsement, and the issuance