(b) Whether it neglects the duty of confirmation under Article 12 of the Short-Term Finance Business Act for the exclusive responsibility for the examination and selection of qualified companies to be implemented individually by the subsidiaries (negative);

B.C. The exclusive responsibility for the examination and selection of eligible companies is to be performed individually by a single subsidiary in charge of the discount purchase and sale of bills. The exclusive responsibility is to examine the credit conditions and asset soundness of the target company in an objective and fair manner more than that executed individually by the subsidiary, provided that it is interpreted that the subsidiary is to enhance the credibility of bills, and that it is to examine and select a separate subsidiary without examining the credit standing, etc. of the issuing company of bills, even if the subsidiary is recognized as an eligible company, it cannot be said that it has been negligent, unless there are special circumstances, due to its negligence.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant purchased at a discount rate of bills issued by an enterprise as one of the main business of a merchant bank under the Short-Term Finance Business Act and sold them to a general third party. In the event that a short-term subsidiary under the Short-Term Finance Business Act sells commercial papers discounted by its subsidiaries, there are two types of guaranteed sale in which the subsidiary company is liable for the payment of such bills, and that the subsidiary company is not liable for the guarantee, and that there are 10,000,000 won or more at the latest issued by the enterprise which is selected as the superior company, and that there are 90,000,000 won or less at the latest 90,000,000 won or less at the latest 10,000,0000 won or less at the latest 40,0000,0000,0000 won or less per annum, the plaintiffs are not liable for each of the above 10,000,000 won or less.

Under the above opinion of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant shall be liable for default or warranty on the sale of a bill as a person who sells an defective bill which has not been paid at the due date, and there is no error of law by the court below as to the effect of endorsement of a bill without distinguishing the act of the bill from the act of the claim and the act of the bill.

2. The second ground for an application for the same appeal shall be considered the same ground;

According to Article 12 of the Short-term Finance Business Act, where a short-term finance company provides discount, acceptance, guarantee, and other loans of bills, it is required to verify the credit standing and asset soundness of the target trader. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay attention not to sell defective commercial papers by investigating the credit standing and asset soundness of the above company in purchasing each of the instant bills at a discount from the non-party Tae Sejong Industrial Co., Ltd.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below set up the management standards for qualified companies in C.C. based on the recent settlement financial statements, which is established as the administrative guidance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy and composed of the executives of each subsidiary company in Seoul, including the defendant (the original court indicated as January 16, 1982, but it is clear that it is a clerical error in 1982.1.8). According to the evidence B-2 of the court below employed by the court below, the court below set up the management standards for qualified companies. C.P. based on the recent settlement financial statements, the court below did not set a reasonable ratio, the ratio, the fixed long-term ratio, the ratio of debt, the ratio of sales, the ratio of sales revenue, the ratio of total assets, the ratio of sales revenue, the ratio of sales revenue, the increase in sales revenue, etc. as well as the total number of external public confidence as 70 points or more as the prescribed evaluation standards, and it was 1820 points or more as 198 points or more.

According to the records, there is no error of misconception of the facts in violation of the rules of evidence as to the above decision of the court below, and in light of the above facts and Eul evidence No. 12-2, the fact of the court below's finding and the fact of the court below's finding that only a subsidiary in charge of the discount and sale of bills is required to individually implement the business of examining and selecting eligible companies, and it is interpreted that the above company's exclusive responsibility was to increase the credibility of bills by investigating the credit status and asset soundness of the company in an objective and fair manner rather than the execution by the subsidiary individually. Thus, the court below's decision to the purport that the defendant's purchase of bills of this case at discount of each of the bill of this case by the issuance of the non-party Thai Industries Industrial Co., Ltd. is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the law as it did not err in the misapprehension of the duty of confirmation under Article 12 of the above Short-Term Finance Business Act, unless there are special circumstances.

The issue is that the above judgment below erred in the interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court Decision 77Da1210 delivered on September 13, 197. However, it is unreasonable to discuss that the above judgment is related to another case and it cannot be a proper precedent in this case.

In addition, the issue is that the judgment of the court below that the above company's financial structure after the end of two months from April 12, 1982 when each of the bills of this case was defaulted is erroneous in the investigation into the above company's credit standing, etc. in light of the fact that the total amount of 11.7 billion won was in excess of the total amount of 8.7 billion won and the total amount of 2.9 billion won was in excess of the total amount of 8.7 billion won and that only the bonds interest in 1981 was in excess of 2.6 billion won. However, even according to the plaintiffs' assertion itself, the plaintiffs purchased each of the bills of this case from January 29, 1982 to February 22 of the same year. Thus, since the plaintiffs purchased each of the bills of this case from the defendant after the sale of the bill of this case, it is nothing more than the ground for the defendant's negligence in the process of investigating the credit standing of the issuing company and the soundness of the company cannot be considered.

3. The grounds for the same appeal shall be deemed third points.

The issue is that the default of each of the instant bills was caused by the bad credit standing and the unsound assets of the issuer, and this is an inherent defect in the bill. Therefore, the judgment below denied the warranty against the Defendant who sold the said bill and the Defendant, despite the responsibility for default, despite the fact that the sale of the bill in this case was conditional sale of the bill, and the Defendant, the seller, is obligated to maintain the current account transaction agreement between the issuer of the bill and the payment bank by the due date of the bill, and the Defendant, the seller, is obligated to maintain the current account transaction agreement between the issuer of the bill and the payment bank by the due date of each due date, and thus, the Defendant suffered damages by the purchaser due to the termination of the

However, as seen earlier, inasmuch as the Defendant’s sales of each of the instant bills purchased at discount by means of an unmortgaged endorsement, thereby excluding not only the endorser’s liability but also the default liability or warranty liability for the sale of bills, the Defendant shall be deemed not to have any default liability or warranty liability for the sale of the said bills, and the lower court shall also have determined to the same purport. Therefore, all of the arguments are groundless.

3. Ultimately, even if examining the grounds for filing an appeal, it is not recognized that the grounds for filing an appeal include important matters concerning the interpretation of statutes that permit the filing of an appeal, and thus, the appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)