logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.23 2016가단5075766
어음금
Text

1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000 and KRW 100,000 among them, the Defendant shall start August 31, 2015, and one million among them.

Reasons

1. The issue date of the order of recognition, and the date of payment at par value;

1. Seoul on May 7, 2015: 100 million won on August 30, 2015

2. Seoul on May 7, 2015: KRW 100 million on September 30, 2015;

3. Seoul on May 7, 2015: 100 million won on October 30, 2015

A. The Defendant issued promissory notes (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”) with C as the addressee as follows:

B. C: (a) on February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff became the final holder of the instant bill, by means of endorsement and transfer, without exempting the Plaintiff from the obligation to prepare a protest for non-payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant, who is the drawer of each of the instant bills, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, a lawful holder, interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from August 31, 2015, the day following the due date for payment, with respect to KRW 100 million, and from October 1, 2015, with respect to KRW 100 million, with respect to KRW 100 million from October 31, 2015, and from October 31, 2015 to March 14, 2016, with respect to KRW 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. (1) The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion (A) that: (a) even if there was no fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff, the act of borrowing was not for the purpose other than the original purpose; or (b) the requirements for the competent authority’s permission or resolution of board of directors were not satisfied; and (c) D did not have any substantial cause between the Plaintiff and C at the time of the transfer of endorsement and assignment of each of the instant bills by means of Korea Plus Co., Ltd.; and (b) filed an application for the instant payment order within the short period from the date of the transfer of endorsement and assignment of each of the instant bills; and (c) C.

arrow