beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 11, 2016, C Co., Ltd issued an electronic bill of KRW 51,700,000 at face value (the maturity date: August 12, 2016; d.) and the electronic bill of KRW 88,00,000 at face value on August 16, 2016 (the maturity date; e.g., December 15, 2016) respectively.
B. The electronic bill dated May 11, 2016 is currently owned by the Bank of Korea through the Plaintiff’s endorsement, and the electronic bill dated August 16, 2016 is currently owned by the Plaintiff.
C. In relation to the electronic bill dated May 11, 2016, the Defendant, each of the following documents, with respect to the Plaintiff: “The amount of the electronic bill was agreed to prevent damage to the Plaintiff, and, if the issue arises, the Defendant would be held liable for all civil and criminal liability against the amount of damage (hereinafter “instant letter 1”); and in relation to the electronic bill as of August 16, 2016, each of the following documents: “The Defendant recognized all liability for damages and financial interest arising from the Plaintiff’s damage if the problem arises due to the due date of the electronic bill” (hereinafter “instant letter 2”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, and 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the electronic bill was defaulted on May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff had a duty to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to the default on payment of the said electronic bill in accordance with the first sheet.
According to the above facts, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the damages caused by the failure to pay the electronic bill normally as of May 11, 2016 as stated in the statement of this case No. 1 prepared by him/her.
Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above electronic bill was rejected on the due date only with the statement of No. 1, and rather, according to the evidence No. 5 and No. 1, the above electronic bill was written.