logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.20 2014가단46819
어음금
Text

1. Defendant Duplicing Co., Ltd., and C jointly with the Plaintiff KRW 36,30,000,000, and the aforementioned amount from June 26, 2014 to June 26, 2014.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Duplicing Co., Ltd. and C

A. Claim No. 1) The Defendant Duplicating Co., Ltd. shall be KRW 75 million at a face value with the date of issuance as blank, KRW 75 million at a face value, June 25, 2014, and KRW 1 of Promissory Notes with the payee B (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”).

(2) The first endorsement of the Promissory Notes was issued, and the endorsement in the name of Defendant B was written in blank, and the second endorsement in the name of Defendant C was written in blank. (2) The Plaintiff presented a payment proposal by filling the issue date of the Promissory Notes to March 28, 2014, but the payment was refused.

3) Defendant Duplicing Co., Ltd. is an issuer, and Defendant C is jointly liable to pay the amount of the bill to the Plaintiff, which is the final holder, as an endorser. B. The judgment below, based on which the Defendants were notified of the date of publication and did not appear on the date of pleading (Article 208(

2. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant B endorsed endorsed the bill of this case as the first endorsement, and therefore, it cannot be admitted as evidence, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the stamp image attached after the name of Defendant B was based on the seal of Defendant B among the part in Defendant B’s document No. 1, among the part in Defendant B’s document No. 1, the part in Defendant B’s document No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact of endorsement by Defendant B, the plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted without the need to further examine the remainder of the issue.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Dapy Co., Ltd. and C is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the claim against the defendant B is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow