[어음금][공2003.3.1.(173),625]
[1] In a case where the holder of a bill loses a legitimate title to possess the bill and there is no economic benefit to seek payment of the bill as a result of the lack of a causal relationship between the holder of the bill and his/her endorsement, whether delegation of personal defense is recognized (negative)
[2] The case holding that the drawer of a bill may refuse to pay part of the amount paid by the endorser to the holder of the bill, to the extent of its personal defense against the endorser, where the drawer paid part of the amount paid by the drawer to the holder of the bill
[3] The case holding that in light of the purport of the provision on the conditions of composition in the determination of approval of composition, where the debtor fails to pay the principal in accordance with the conditions of composition, damages for delay due to nonperformance cannot be deemed as exempted
[1] In principle, a person who received a claim under a bill cannot set up against the holder defenses arising from his personal relations with the previous holder. However, the purpose of the law that limits his personal defense is to protect the interests of the purchaser of the bill for the safety of the transaction of the bill, so in a case where the holder of the bill loses a legitimate title to hold the bill, and there is no economic benefit to seek payment of the bill, it shall be deemed that the person is not in the position of enjoying the benefit of personal defense.
[2] The case holding that the drawer of a bill may refuse to pay the part of the bill against the holder, on the ground that there is no economic interest in claiming payment with respect to the bill that is extinguished between the endorser and the endorser, and that the drawer of the bill may, to the extent that there is personal defense against the endorser, refuse to pay the part of the bill, as long as there is no economic interest in claiming payment with respect to the bill that is extinguished
[3] The case holding that in the case where the payment of composition bonds is exempted when the payment of composition bonds is performed, it cannot be said that the debtor exempted the payment of principal due to default, if the principal is not repaid according to composition conditions.
[1] Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [3] Article 61 of the Composition Act, Article 298 (1)
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Young-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Yeongdeungpo Pharmaceutical Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na45548 delivered on July 12, 2002
The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff on damages for delay is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal and the Defendant’s appeal
The plaintiff and the defendant's grounds of appeal (the plaintiff's supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed on October 14, 2002 and the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, November 12, 2002 and the defendant's supplemental appellate brief and the defendant's supplemental appellate brief were supplemental appellate brief dated November 20, 2002 to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal).
1. The lower court acknowledged the following facts in full view of the admitted evidence.
A. The Defendant issued each of the instant bills to Jindo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jindo”) and Jindo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jindo”), and Jindo Co. 1, Nonparty 1, in sequence, endorsed and transferred each of the instant bills to the Plaintiff.
B. Each of the bills of this case was presented for payment at the due date, but all payment was refused, and the plaintiff recovered and possessed each of the bills of this case.
C. After that, the defendant received the decision of commencement of composition on May 25, 1998 by the Dong Branch of the Seoul District Court as the Seoul District Court 97Ra15 on August 3, 1998, and the above decision of authorization was finalized on August 24, 1998. Paragraph 2 of the composition condition provides that a claim exceeding ten million won out of composition bond against a person other than a financial institution shall be repaid on the last day of every three months from the date of the final decision of approval of composition and shall be exempted from interest accrued and future interest accrued. Paragraph 6 of the composition condition provides that a composition condition shall be exempted from payment of the remaining interest and damages if payment is performed under Paragraph 2.
2. The Plaintiff, as a holder of each of the instant notes, claimed for payment of KRW 571,868,560 of the Promissory Notes and damages for delay to the Defendant, who is the drawer.
3. As to this, the Defendant first asserted that, through Nonparty 1, a corporate bond broker, issued each of the instant bills as collateral by borrowing money from the Plaintiff through Nonparty 1, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a loan agreement between the Defendant and Nonparty 1 as their respective agents. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant repaid all of the instant bills to Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s agent. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the monetary loan agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the status of an agent of the bond broker, or violation of the precedents, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
4. A. Next, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because the Plaintiff was paid the full amount of the Promissory Notes or the remainder other than KRW 200 million among them. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the Promissory Notes 279,50,110 won (571,868,560 won - 292,368,410 won) on the ground that the Defendant did not pay all the Promissory Notes and interest thereon to Nonparty 1 and paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 292,368,410 as repayment of the Promissory Notes.
B. First, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we accept the measures that the court below acknowledged each of the above repayment by the defendant and the non-party 1, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the omission of judgment as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out
C. Next, the claimant cannot set up against the holder defenses due to his personal relations with the previous holder. However, the purpose of the law that limits his personal defense is to protect the interests of the purchaser of the bill for the safety of the transaction of the bill is to protect the interests of the purchaser of the bill, so in a case where the holder of the bill loses a legitimate title to hold the bill, and there is no economic benefit to seek payment of the bill, it shall be deemed that the benefit of the personal defense cutting is not in the position of enjoying the benefit of the bill.
Therefore, inasmuch as the Defendant paid all the amount of the Promissory Notes to Nonparty 1 and paid KRW 292,368,410 to the Plaintiff out of the amount of the Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff did not have economic benefits to seek payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes with respect to the portion of KRW 292,368,410, terminated between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, who is the endorser, and thus, is not in the position to enjoy human rights-based benefits. Therefore, the Defendant, who is the drawer of each of the Promissory Notes, may refuse to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes against the Plaintiff, who is the holder of each of
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is insufficient, but the defendant's partial acceptance of the above argument is just in the same purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the unmanned character of bill act and the defense against bill, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the mistake of bill act and the omission of reasoning as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant.
In addition, Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1405 Decided January 24, 1984 cited in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff is that in the case in question, it is decided that the holder's claim for payment of a bill constitutes an abuse of rights and thus, it is not possible to invoke this issue differently from this case. The plaintiff and the defendant's ground of appeal on this part are without merit.
5. Finally, the defendant argued that the claim of this case, which is a composition bond, should be modified in accordance with the composition condition since the approval ruling was obtained. The court below determined that the plaintiff's claim for delay damages on the bill of this case is groundless on the ground that the claim of this case was modified in accordance with the composition condition due to the confirmation of the composition approval ruling against the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 279,50,110 on the last day of every three months from August 24, 1998, which is the date when the approval ruling of composition becomes final and conclusive, on the last day of every three months from August 24, 1998, which is the date when the composition approval ruling becomes final and conclusive.
However, it is difficult to accept the part of the court below's rejection of damages for delay for the following reasons.
In light of the contents of the above composition condition, Paragraph (2) provides that a claim exceeding KRW 10,00,000 shall be repaid on the last day of every three months in equal installments for 24 months from the date of the final decision to authorize composition, and the interest accrued and future interest shall be exempted. Paragraph (6) provides that a composition creditor shall be exempted from the payment of the remaining interest and damages upon the execution of the payment under Paragraph (2). In light of the above provisions, where the defendant, a debtor, pays the principal in accordance with composition condition, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff, a composition creditor, other than a financial institution, is exempted from the payment of interest and damages, and where the defendant, the debtor, fails to pay the principal in accordance with composition condition, it shall not be deemed that the damages for delay shall be exempted from the payment of the principal.
Nevertheless, the court below concluded that damages for delay caused by nonperformance of the composition conditions under Paragraph 2 of the above composition conditions were exempted, and thus there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interpretation of composition conditions. The plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.
6. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to damages for delay is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent
Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)