Promissory Notes shall be entered into with special agreement between the parties and for third parties.

If the issuer of a promissory note fails to pay the money to the payee at the time of the issuance thereof, the issuer of the promissory note agrees to deliver any property to the holder of the promissory note, whichever is later, to the effect of payment in kind for the so-called third party, for which the holder is a third party. Thus, the holder of the promissory note is to express his/her intent to make profits to the issuer after the date of payment and acquire rights to the

Article 537 of the Civil Act

More than State

[Defendant-Appellant] Doz. (Attorney Choi Chang-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court of the first instance, Seoul High Court of the second instance, 54 civilian 274 delivered on January 6, 1955

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's first ground for appeal is that the original judgment is erroneous in the incomplete trial and the incomplete reasons. The original judgment is a separate contract for the defendant's transfer of the bill of exchange at par value 230,000 to Kim Jong-il, and the defendant has made a promise for payment in kind to the holder of the bill of exchange 150 persons if the defendant is unable to pay 150 persons in advance at the payment date. The defendant's separate contract for the defendant's assertion that the defendant's transfer of the bill of exchange to the non-party is only a separate contract for payment in kind 4,000 if the defendant's transfer of the bill of exchange to the non-party and the separate contract for payment in kind 5,000,000 won is merely a separate contract for the plaintiff's transfer of the bill of exchange 5,000 won. The court below's conclusion that the plaintiff's transfer of the bill of exchange 4,0000 won should not be accepted within the original time limit of 5,000 won.

No. 2 of the original judgment is an Eup/Myeon in violation of the law. The original judgment is merely a separate agreement from the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes No. 1, recognizing that the contract facts and rights are rights other than the form of agreement, and the right was also the guarantee of the bill of exchange and Promissory Notes No. 1, but it shows that the right is not accompanied by the transfer of the bill of exchange and Promissory Notes No. 1 and is not of the nature to be succeeded to the bill of exchange and Promissory Notes No. 2. Thus, if it is necessary to transfer the right separately from the transfer of the bill of exchange and Promissory Notes No. 2, and if the transfer is against a third party, it is apparent that the Civil Act, which is a law, should be applied mutatis mutandis to the plaintiff. From this point of view, even if it is clear that the right is not a security right created by the bill of exchange and Promissory Notes No. 1, the original judgment does not violate the provisions of Article 469 of the Civil Act, which is the holder of the bill of exchange and Promissory Notes No. 37.

However, in cases where an issuer of a promissory note fails to pay the money within the due date for payment as prescribed by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, the holder of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes has agreed to deliver certain property to the holder of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and thereafter, gives rise to the effect of payment in kind for a third party to whom the holder would be a third party, so the holder of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes shall express his/her intent to make profits to the issuer after the due date for payment and acquire rights to property at the same time. In this case, according to the facts established by the court below, the defendant shall, as of October 5, 4286, issue a bill of exchange at face value 230,00 won to the non-party Kim Jong-il at the place of issuance and payment, and deliver a copy of the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes at his/her own place of payment, and thus, the defendant shall be exempted from paying the bill of exchange and Promissory Notes to the defendant as stated in the judgment of the court below, without merit.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)