(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2015.10.21 2015가단5659

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2015.10.21 2015가단5659

수표금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 28, 2015 to June 22, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments as to the cause of the claim, the check number C, par value C, 61,000,000, and payment date as of May 28, 2015, and the No. 1 copy of the check number sheet (hereinafter "the check in this case") stating that "the check amount is paid to the holder and the protest is exempted from the preparation of the protest." The defendant issued one copy of the check number as of May 28, 2015. The fact that the plaintiff holds the check in this case as of the date of the closing of argument in this case is recognized.

According to the above facts, the defendant, who is the endorser of the check of this case, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as the holder of the check of this case 61,00,000 won per annum from May 28, 2015 to June 22, 2015, which is the delivery date of the complaint of this case, the delivery date of the bill of this case, 5% per annum from May 28, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion that there is no fact that the defendant presented the check within the lawful time limit for presentation of payment, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant marks the rubber "BD" on the endorsement of the check of this case, and affixes the seal of D personal seal, which is not the official seal of representative director, on which the defendant affixs the seal of D personal seal, which is not the official seal of representative director. This is the act of a bill with a personal D, which is not D as the defendant representative director, and thus, it is invalid for the defendant. However, according to the entries and shapes of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the official seal affixed on the check of this case is merely the official seal of the defendant representative director, and therefore, the above assertion

In addition, the defendant is defective in the check of this case without entering the place of issue.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.13 2014가단44578

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.10.18 2016가단219937

-의정부지방법원 2019.02.14 2018나209813

-창원지방법원 2013.09.25 2013고단677

-전주지방법원 2020.08.26 2019나4208