[약속어음금][공1999.4.15.(80),650]
[1] In a case where the judgment of nullification is revoked after the payer bank paid the accident declaration security to the person who received the judgment of nullification, the requirements for the payer bank's discharge
[2] In a case where a payment bank subject to the Seoul Bills Exchange Agreement submits a judgment of nullification in violation of the above regulations and pays the report security money to a person who received the judgment of nullification before one month elapses, whether the payment bank is negligent (affirmative)
[1] Even if a payment bank made a judgment to a person with a judgment of nullification and retroactively loses its validity after the payment of the accident report security money, the person who received the judgment of nullification at the time when the payment bank made the payment falls under quasi-Possessor of the claim. Thus, the payment bank shall be exempted unless it is malicious or negligent to the payment bank at the time of the payment. However, in order for the payment to have no negligence, the payment bank shall not be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the person who received the judgment was actually an unentitled person, and shall not be in violation
[2] Article 76 (1) 3 of the Seoul Bills of Exchange Treaty provides that "if one month has passed after the judgment of the court was received, the court's decision shall be submitted, and one month has passed since the date when the plaintiff becomes aware of the nullification judgment, the provisions of the above Code provide that "the time limit for filing a lawsuit for objection to the nullification judgment shall be one month from the date when the plaintiff becomes aware of the nullification judgment", it cannot be known whether a lawsuit for objection to the nullification judgment is filed at the time within one month from the time when the judgment was submitted, and therefore it is almost impossible for anyone to finally confirm who is a legitimate right holder at least within one month from the time when the judgment was submitted, it shall be interpreted to the effect that the accident report security money cannot be paid at least within one month from the time when the judgment of nullification is submitted, and if the payment bank governed by the above Code violates the above Code, there
[1] Article 470 of the Civil Act; Articles 461(2), 462, and 468 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 40(3) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 470 of the Civil Act; Articles 461(2), 462, and 468 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 40(3) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act
National Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Spah, Attorneys Park Woo-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Cho full-time
Seoul District Court Decision 96Na34367 delivered on September 11, 1997
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's claim for the above non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's payment of the above non-party 9's non-party 1's payment of the non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's payment of the non-party 9's non-party 1's payment of the non-party 9's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 9's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 9's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 9's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 9's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the above non-party 1's payment of the non-party 9's payment.
On the other hand, even if a payment bank made a payment to a person who received the judgment of nullification and retroactively loses its validity after the judgment of nullification was cancelled, it shall be deemed that the payment bank is a quasi-Possessor of the claim at the time when the payment bank made the payment. Thus, the payment bank shall be exempted from liability unless it is malicious or negligent at the time of payment. However, in order for the person who received the judgment of nullification to be not negligent, it shall not be aware of the fact that the person who received the judgment of nullification was actually an unentitled person, but shall not be in violation of the agreement on the time and procedure for payment of the report of accident and the due date for payment. However, Article 76 (1) 3 of the Seoul Exchange of Promissory Notes, which is bound in the records, provides that the payment of the report of accident shall be made "where one month has passed after the judgment of nullification was received, and one month has passed since Article 462 (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the time limit for objection against the judgment of nullification is only one month from the date when the plaintiff was aware that the judgment of the judgment of nullification.
Therefore, the court below should determine whether the payment bank's negligence or the effect of the above payment by the paying bank is against the defendant, by examining whether the agreement between the paying bank and the defendant that the above agreement extends to the defendant who is the client, and whether the above payment by the paying bank has the effect on the defendant. However, the court below's failure to conduct an incomplete hearing and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment. There are grounds for appeal pointing this out.
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)