(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단20718

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단20718

약속어음 청구의 소(배서인에 대한)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,995,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 28, 2016 to July 15, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in Gap evidence No. 1 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

On July 30, 2015, Hyundai Pene Co., Ltd. issued and delivered to C a copy of the electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) dated 27, 2016, at the face value of 38,995,000 won per each day, at the circulation point of the payment bank, and at the expiration date of January 27, 2016.

B. Each of them was assigned to the Defendant, the second endorsement, the Defendant, the third endorsement C, and the Plaintiff, the fourth endorsement, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff presented the payment of the instant bill to the payment bank on the maturity date, but the payment was refused, and the purport of the refusal was registered with the electronic bill management agency.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the plaintiff's claim, the defendant is the third endorsement of the bill of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 38,995,00 and delay damages to the plaintiff who is the last holder of the bill of this case.

B. The defendant's argument concerning the defendant's assertion argues that since the bill of this case was endorsed and transferred without any cause, the defendant visited B, a business employee of C, requested payment of cash instead of the bill of this case, and stored the bill of this case, and then delivered cash to C. In other words, C demanded advance payment, endorsed and transferred it to C, and received building materials from C. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

In this case, the bill of this case was endorsed and transferred without cause.

Even if there is no assertion on the fact that the plaintiff acquired the bill of this case with the knowledge that it would prejudice the defendant, the defendant cannot refuse to perform the duty of recourse against the plaintiff, so the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. On the other hand, the Defendant delivered to the Plaintiff a copy of the instant complaint from January 28, 2016.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.09.23 2015가단4183

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.10.12 2016가단105844

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.02.03 2015가단13797

-광주지방법원 2016.10.25 2016가단10969

-서울북부지방법원 2018.05.01 2017나37421