[보증채무금청구사건][하집1986(2),35]
In cases where a promissory note issued to secure a cause obligation is endorsed and transferred, and the obligee becomes to hold the consideration finally, whether the cause of the obligation ceases to exist or not.
If a creditor who has received a promissory note issued to secure a cause obligation, will definitely hold the price for the said note by endorsement, transfer, or assignment to a third party, for example, in the event that there is no risk that the obligee, who is the transferor of endorsement, would be subject to recourse due to payment of the amount for the bill, neglect of the procedure for preservation, and in the case of an unsecured endorsement, the obligation
Articles 14 and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act
Daegu Investment Finance Corporation
New Warrants
Seoul Central District Court (84 Gohap4826) in the first instance trial
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount of KRW 500,00,000 and an amount calculated by the rate of 19 percent per annum from June 1, 1983 to the delivery of the instant gushes. As to the real estate recorded in the attached list, the plaintiff, the debtor, the non-party to the lawsuit, the non-party to the lawsuit, the maximum debt amount of KRW 500,000,000 shall be paid to the plaintiff, and the registration procedure for the establishment of the mortgage on the ground of the contract to establish the right to collateral security shall be implemented.
The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a provisional execution against the monetary payment shall be pronounced.
1. The plaintiff company is a so-called subsidiary established pursuant to the Short-Term Finance Business Act, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 13-1, Gap evidence 1 (which is discount note) and Eul evidence 4-1,2 of the original judgment, and the above witness testimony of the original judgment, and the testimony of the court below 1, 4-1, 2 of the above evidence 4-1, and the above witness testimony of the original judgment (which is not trusted in the above witness assistance, military affairs, long-term and long-term witness testimony of the original judgment, and long-term witness testimony of the first instance court 100-year interest rate of the above 30-year interest rate of the above 1,000-year interest rate of the above 30-year interest rate of the above 1,000-year interest rate of the plaintiff company, which is not less than 30-year interest rate of 1,000-year interest rate of the above 30-year interest rate of the plaintiff company.
2. The plaintiff, based on the above recognition facts, sought the defendant, a joint guarantor of the non-party company, to pay the above loan and to perform the registration procedure for establishing a mortgage in the vicinity of the purport of the claim to secure the above loan. The defendant first, since the plaintiff company at short-term financial business chain is unable to perform the general loan business under the law, since the above transaction between the plaintiff and the non-party company is not a loan which is the cause debt, but a bill with the nature of the sale of a bill, it is merely a debt on a bill, and the non-party company is merely a joint and several obligation on a bill. Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the above transaction between the plaintiff and the non-party company is a joint and several obligation on a bill is concerned with the plaintiff. Therefore, the so-called general loan like the general commercial bank is identical with the defendant's principal. However, although the so-called general commercial bank cannot make a loan, it cannot be viewed that the subsidiary's act of establishing a bill concurrently exists with the cause debt and the obligation on a bill.
Then, the case holding that since the plaintiff's above five promissory notes acquired by the non-party company were merely endorsed and transferred to the non-party company to the 30 third party, and the transferee's payment of these promissory notes was all extinguished, the defendant's obligation to guarantee the non-party company 4-2, Gap's 7-1 and 5 as well as all of the above witness's testimony, the plaintiff's obligation to guarantee the non-party 3's non-party 1 and 2 (the non-party 3's non-party 1 and 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the above are paid.
3. However, the Plaintiff recognized that five promissory notes were paid at the due date, but the non-party company requested the extension of payment of the above promissory notes on March 31, 1983, which is the cause of the payment of the above promissory notes, to the Plaintiff company on February 25, 1983, but the Plaintiff already transferred the above promissory notes to a third party, and thus, it could not be extended the due date in the ordinary form of a bill of exchange for the new promissory notes, the payment of which is extended. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s payment period of which is 50,000,000 won is 15 copies of the above promissorysory notes, which are 00 won and discounted by the non-party company, and the non-party company provided five existing promissorysory notes with the above money to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff company on February 25, 1983, which is 00, which is 500,000 won of the above promissorysory notes. Thus, the non-party company provided five existing promissory notes with the payment period of the Plaintiff company merely was extended.
4. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case which is based on the premise that the above joint and several liability of the defendant remains in existence is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. Since the original judgment is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Hun-Un (Presiding Judge)