logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2020.01.21 2019가단1843
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff”) issued, at the Defendant’s request, an electronic bill in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “electronic bill of this case”) with face value of KRW 191,00,000,000 at face value, the paying bank and the branch office’s military cultural Dong, the due date, December 22, 2017, to enable the Defendant to pay the amount to the customer by means of a bill discount, etc.

B. The Defendant received the instant electronic bill from the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff.

C. On September 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) divided the electronic bill of this case with the endorsement amount of KRW 44 million as of September 25, 2017; (b) KRW 66,803,660 as of September 27, 2017; and (c) KRW 40,000 as to Company F; and (d) used the electronic bill of this case with endorsement amount of KRW 40,196,340 as of September 29, 2017.

Since then, the Defendant recovered and returned the electronic bill of this case to the Plaintiff before the due date or did not pay the settlement fund for the electronic bill. The electronic bill of this case was rejected on December 22, 2017, which was the due date for the bill of this case.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was suspended from current account transaction around October 24, 2017, before the maturity date of the instant electronic bill.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including, if any, the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties’ assertion is a financing bill of this case, and the Defendant agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the face value with the settlement fund of the electronic bill of this case, but the bill was in default due to its settlement due to its maturity.

Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff.

arrow