beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from July 31, 2015 to August 25, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 15, 2015, the Defendant issued an electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) which is the recipient’s e-mail metal, face value 46,00,000, and the due date on July 30, 2015, which is the ordinary village Financial Center (hereinafter “instant bill”).
B. The bill of this case was endorsed and transferred in sequence to Daeju Metal Co., Ltd., the payee and the first endorsement, to the superior steel industry Co., Ltd., west ethyl Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff, and UPS.
C. Although U.S., the final holder, presented a payment at the payment date of the instant bill, the payment was refused on the ground of acceptance, and the Plaintiff was the final holder of the instant bill recovered on August 12, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, who is the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the holder of the Promissory Notes the amount of KRW 46,00,000, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 31, 2015 to August 25, 2015, which is the day following the date of payment, pursuant to the Commercial Act, pursuant to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015.
Since the Defendant’s endorsement and transfer of the Promissory Notes to the Daero Metal Co., Ltd. for the discount of the Promissory Notes, the Promissory Notes of this case were issued without any cause, and thus, they could refuse to perform the obligation to pay the Promissory Notes (personal defense as to the causal relation). However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes, acquired the Promissory Notes with the knowledge of the fact that the Promissory Notes were issued to Daero Metal Co., Ltd. for the purpose of discount.
3. Conclusion