[손해배상][집25(3)민,60;공1977.11.1.(571) 10310]
A short-term finance company shall exercise its duty of care in selling bills of exchange for other companies.
When a short-term finance company intends to sell bills by means of a transfer without collateral endorsement, it has a duty of care to investigate closely the credit standing, asset soundness, etc. of the issuer in advance and protect customers from any damage.
Article 12 of the Short-Term Finance Business Act
Plaintiff (Attorney Hwang Young-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Busan Investment Finance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Daegu High Court Decision 76Na364 delivered on June 3, 1977
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.
First, we judge the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.
According to the facts established by the court below, the amount of KRW 10 million against the plaintiff is 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982, and the reorganization plan to pay the remaining amount of KRW 3,336,000 in installments was authorized by the Busan District Court in 1983. Thus, the plaintiff can receive the above money at the end of the above year unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the losses suffered by the plaintiff due to the bankruptcy of the Promissory Notes are limited to the amount equivalent to interest at the rate of 6% per annum under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and the total amount of the Promissory Notes was 10,000,000 won. The court below's decision to the purport that the court below's decision is legitimate, and it should be considered that the plaintiff 1 purchased the credit peace of the non-party company, which is the non-party company issuing the Promissory Notes in this case, and it should be considered that the plaintiff's negligence is justified in calculating the amount of damages.
Next, the defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
Comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Article 12 of the Short-term Finance Business Act and the records of this case, the defendant company has a duty to verify the credit standing and asset soundness of the target trader when offering a discount, acceptance, guarantee, or other credit as recognized by the court below. In this case, the defendant company has a duty of care to investigate the issuer's credit standing and asset soundness in advance to sell a promissory note by means of an unsecured endorsement. However, the non-party company's financial structure as of November 1974, which is the issuing company of the Promissory Notes, sold this Promissory Notes to the plaintiff, can be seen as 252,500 won or more, and its payment capacity cannot be seen as unlawful by the evidence adopted by the court below that the above non-party company failed to perform its duty of care in light of the above facts that the non-party company did not have a duty of care in the light of the above legal reasoning and records, and thus, the court below's decision that the above non-party company did not have a duty of care in the light of the above legal reasoning.
Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)