logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.21 2015나43025
어음금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons why a party member of the court of first instance shall explain this case are as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because the defendant's reasoning is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following judgments in

2. The defendant asserts that each of the Promissory Notes in this case is not a financing bill, but merely an endorsed bill without any cause, and that no consideration has been paid between the plaintiff, B, and the defendant, and thus the plaintiff does not acquire each of the Promissory Notes in this case with independent economic interests. Thus, the plaintiff does not have the status of enjoying the benefit of human defense cutting.

A financing bill refers to a bill which is received by other persons for the purpose of having them obtain financing from a third party by a bill.

The issuer of a financing bill may not set up a defense of the financing bill issued without compensation against a third party in good faith or bad faith, or even if its acquisition is made by endorsement after the due date, but shall not be liable for the melting party.

In addition, whether a bill of exchange constitutes a financing bill should be determined on the basis of specific facts and not on the basis of the parties' arguments.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da6015 Decided November 15, 2012, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, each of the following circumstances revealed in light of the health class, evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including various numbers), evidence No. 2, witness Nos. 2, and witness Nos. 1 and the overall purport of oral argument as to the instant case, i.e., the issuance of each of the instant promissorysory notes, the payment date of which was extended instead of the existing promissory notes issued to secure the unpaid loan to the Plaintiff, i.e., the issuance of each of the instant promissory notes, the Defendant, and ii).

arrow