The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (i) although the guarantor of a bill bears the responsibility for a legitimate purchaser as well as the specified payee, the court below did not regard it as such. (ii) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the liability of the guarantor of a bill, and (iii) misapprehending the legal principles on the alteration of a bill, notwithstanding the fact that the change of the name of the drawee of the bill of this case did not constitute alteration of the bill, and (iv) the guarantor of the bill of this case is liable only for the original payer even though there was no change in the liability in accordance with the wording before and after the alteration.

However, each of the above reasons does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 as well as the grounds of appeal based on the permission dismissal by the Plaintiff’s agent.

(1) Even if the drawer of a bill has any change in its entries, it shall not be altered as an act of change of an ordinary holder of a right, but if there is any other right or obligation on the bill, it constitutes an alteration without the consent of such person.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the non-party, the representative director of the non-party electric power resource development company, entered the non-party foreign corporation in Korea as an addressee, received a bill guarantee for the issuer from the defendant on the Promissory Notes in this case prepared by the non-party foreign corporation, and without the consent of the defendant, deleted the receiver's distress and deliver it to the plaintiff without the consent of the defendant, thereby making the plaintiff put his name in the name of the payee's column. Thus, the above change in the bearer's column constitutes a alteration of the Promissory Notes in relation to the defendant.

(2) In addition, inasmuch as it is deemed that the modification of a bill constitutes an alteration of a bill, even though there is no difference between the original addressee’s obligation to a foreign corporation in Korea and the original addressee’s obligation to a bill after alteration, the original guarantee of a bill is an accessory act for the purpose of securing the principal obligation on a bill, and is premised on the formal existence of the principal obligation. The principal obligation of the bill guarantee of this case is the issuer’s obligation to a foreign corporation in Korea, and it is not the issuer’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and thus, cannot be held liable for the bill guarantee against the altered Plaintiff.

(3) However, in cases where a right under a bill is substantially transferred between an addressee and an addressee after the change, that is, in cases where a right under a bill is transferred without the method of endorsement transfer, and the name of an addressee is changed in an irregular manner, if the addressee after the change is possible to oppose the acquisition of the right against the issuer, the guarantor of the bill cannot be exempted from the responsibility of guarantee of the bill against the addressee after the change. This is natural in light of the recognition of the accompanyingness of the so-called guarantee obligation, in cases where the creditor to transfer the principal claim is changed in the Civil Code.

However, it is clear in light of the facts established by the court below that the change of the receiver of the bill of this case was not caused by the transfer of rights under the bill, so there is no room for the responsibility of the guarantor of the bill, such as the transfer of rights.

(4) As seen above, inasmuch as deeming that the addressee of the Promissory Notes in this case deleted the name of the Company and delivered it to the Plaintiff and made the Plaintiff enter his name as the addressee’s alteration of the Promissory Notes, it cannot be deemed as identical to the Plaintiff’s transfer of the blank Notes to the Plaintiff. As such, the assertion of abuse of the right to supplement that the filling of blank was erroneous is nothing more than the human defense, but the assertion of modification of the Promissory Notes cannot be deemed as a defense of personal relations between the Defendant and the issuer, the guarantor of the Promissory Notes.

(5) Ultimately, the lower court’s judgment that the Defendant did not have the responsibility to guarantee a bill against the Plaintiff is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the liability of a guarantor such as the theory of lawsuit, or misapprehending the legal principles as to the alteration of a bill, or as to the substantial purport of Article 69 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act,

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 Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)