(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.11.11 2015나2487

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.11.11 2015나2487

어음금등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 11, 2013, the Defendant issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a note with a face value of KRW 20,000,000 at par value, the payee, the date of payment, May 11, 2013, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively (hereinafter “instant note”).

B. The Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s introduction, borrowed KRW 10 million from C as of April 1, 2013 at the time of repayment, and set up and awarded the same loan certificate to C.

On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff received the above loan claims against the Defendant from C, and C around May 22, 2014, notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer by content-certified mail.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of the amount of the bill of this case and the sum of the amount of the bill of this case and the amount of the bill of this case, and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) The defendant asserts that the bill of this case was not obligated to pay the amount of the bill of this case to the plaintiff since it was prepared and delivered to the plaintiff at the plaintiff's request at the time when D borrowed KRW 20 million from the plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the defendant, not D, and even according to the defendant's argument, the defendant issued a bill at the plaintiff's request with respect to the debt of the loan to the plaintiff. Thus, since the bill of this case is issued for the payment or security of the debt and it is not issued without any cause. Thus, the defendant's argument that there is no cause relationship is without merit.

(2) Next, the Defendant’s transfer of the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer of the loan to the Defendant constitutes the acquisition of the claim for the trust of lawsuit.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.10.12 2016가단43304

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.01.10 2017가합1160

-광주지방법원 2016.10.25 2016가단10969

-대법원 1996. 5. 14. 선고 96다3449 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2019.05.10 2019노83