[부당이득금][공2003.4.1.(175),780]
[1] The meaning of a special agreement that "any person shall be liable to guarantee a discount of commercial bills" under a credit guarantee agreement.
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which denied the negligence in preserving the claim of discount banks which did not investigate whether a request for a public summons was made or not, and did not report the right to a discount bill
[1] Where a credit guarantee agreement issued by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund provides that "this guarantee shall be liable to guarantee discount of commercial bills (tax invoices) issued in accordance with the business purpose of the company in question and accompanied by normal business activities in relation to goods and services transaction conducted by the company which received the business registration certificate," any bill constitutes a commercial bill as defined in the above special agreement, so long as it is issued in relation to the goods and services transaction conducted in compliance with the business purpose of the company among the enterprises which received the business registration certificate, it shall not be deemed that the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund is exempted from the liability to guarantee the financial institution discounted by the discount of the bill, even though the bill constitutes a commercial bill as defined in the above special agreement.
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which denied the negligence in preserving the claim of discount banks, which did not investigate whether a request for a public summons was made or not, and did not report the right to a discount bill
[1] Article 105 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Article 485 of the Civil Code
(Attorney Park Jae-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Industrial Bank of Korea (Attorney Han-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 2000Na2480 delivered on September 6, 2002
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. As to a claim for discharge based on the credit guarantee clause
In the credit guarantee statement issued by the Credit Guarantee Fund, "this guarantee is liable to guarantee discount of commercial bills (tax invoices attached thereto) issued in accordance with the business objectives of the company in question and accompanied by normal business transactions between the enterprises to which the business registration certificate has been issued." If a bill is issued as a result of normal business transactions conducted in conformity with the business objectives of the company between the enterprises to which the business registration certificate has been issued, this constitutes a commercial bill as defined in the above special agreement, even though the bill constitutes a commercial bill as defined in the above special agreement, it cannot be said that there was a cause such as the loss of the bill to any endorser in the course of circulation of the bill, and that the Credit Guarantee Fund is exempted from its liability for guarantee on the basis of the above special agreement.
The court below is justified in holding that if a bill, the meaning of which is discounted, is accompanied by the transaction of goods and services conducted in accordance with normal business activities, if the bill is issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit guarantee agreement of this case, the plaintiff is responsible for the guarantee of the discount, and the endorsement of the bill thereafter is accompanied by the transaction of goods and services, etc., it shall not be held liable for the guarantee only if it is accompanied by the transaction of goods and services. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law in matters
2. As to a claim for exemption under a contract for entrustment of business affairs, and a claim for damages due to nonperformance
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected a request from the Incheon District Court for the suspension of payment of each of the instant bills on the ground of the loss of each of the instant bills. The non-party, an endorser of each of the instant bills, filed a request for a public summons with respect to the same bill, which is the place of payment, for the suspension of payment on the ground of the loss of each of the instant bills, and filed a request for a public summons from the Incheon District Court. The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a trust agreement prior to the discount on each of the instant bills. According to the above, the Defendant entered a claim preservation measure as one of the business entrusted by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant must manage the business entrusted by the Plaintiff with the care of a good manager. However, the Defendant did not report the right to each of the instant bills in the above public summons procedure, and the bank which discounted the bill, but rejected a request from the Defendant for a discount on the bill of exchange on the ground that it did not request the payment on the bill to the Defendant for a public summons to whom the report of the accident occurred was made.
Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to interpretation of a trust agreement due to violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. All the arguments
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)