[약속어음금][공1988.5.15.(823),827]
The nature of issuance of promissory notes in lieu of a certificate of borrowing money
If a company issues a promissory note in lieu of a borrowed instrument with borrowed money, the issuance of such promissory note shall be deemed to have been made for the purpose of securing or securing the payment of the borrowed money rather than the discount of the bill with the nature of the sale of the bill.
Article 78 of the Bills of Exchange
[Judgment of the court below]
[Defendant-Appellee] COSS department, Inc., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellee
Seoul High Court Decision 86Na296 delivered on January 19, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
In full view of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment below as to the conjunctive claim of this case, the defendant endorsed this case’s promissory note to mean that the non-party corporation issued two promissory notes of this case and lent funds to the creditor, knowing that it would be delivered to the creditor as the underlying document for the loan and as a collateral, the non-party company borrowed the money of this case and delivered the bill of this case to the plaintiff in lieu of the loan certificate. Accordingly, the court below acknowledged that the non-party company borrowed the money of this case and delivered the bill of this case to the plaintiff in lieu of the loan certificate. The court below held that the defendant is liable to guarantee the non-party company’s debt of this case on the ground that the non-party company made an endorsement as above
Upon examining the relevant documents, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for the warranty of bills or the violation of the rules of evidence, as in the theory of lawsuit.
In addition, as determined by the court below, if the non-party company borrowed the money of this case from the plaintiff and issued the Promissory Notes in lieu of the loan certificate, the issuance of the Promissory Notes of this case is made in order to secure the payment of the loan obligation rather than the discount of the bill with the nature of the sale of the Promissory Notes.
Therefore, although the judgment of the court below that the bill of this case was delivered to the plaintiff in the form of bill discount, it is somewhat insufficient, the decision of the court below that the defendant is liable to guarantee the non-party company's loan obligation is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the discount of bill.
Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)