[1] In a case where the issuer of a promissory note deceivings a third party to issue a promissory note, the case holding that the revocation is recognized under Article 110 (2) of the Civil Code, on the premise that Article 110 of the Civil Code is applicable to the act

[2] Whether the addressee of a promissory note constitutes a third party under Article 110(3) of the Civil Code in a case where the issuer of a promissory note deceivings a third party to issue a promissory note (negative)

[1] In a case where a mutual savings and finance company issued and delivered a promissory note for the purpose of security separately from a joint guarantor for a transaction debtor who is liable for a bill discount and discounted a bill to a transaction debtor who is liable for a bill discount, but although the bill was forged, it was deceiving the debtor for a transaction debtor who is liable for a bill discount and issued a promissory note for the joint and several sureties and the purpose of security, the case holding that in light of the specific facts and facts, it is recognized that the mutual savings and finance company as a joint and several sureties knew that it was forged at the time of the discount of the forged bill and that the promissory note was issued and delivered to the mutual savings and finance company by deceiving the debtor who is liable for the transaction debtor who is liable for the bill discount, and that the issuance of the promissory note as a joint and several sureties was lawfully revoked by being served on the mutual savings and finance company as a copy of the complaint demanding confirmation of existence of the debt based on Article 110

[2] In the case of paragraph (1) above, the mutual savings and finance company is not a third party under Article 110 (3) of the Civil Code since it is a person who has issued and delivered a promissory note from an issuer of a promissory note deceiving a debtor in the discount transaction of a bill.

[1] Article 110(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, Article 7 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 110(3) of the Civil Act, Article 7 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory

[2] Supreme Court Decision 80Da1403 decided May 25, 1982 (Gong1982, 594)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na17620 delivered on December 21, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

According to the records, each forged bill of this case, the size of which the non-party requested discount to the defendant, is larger than 3mm in width and length, and thus, it is apparent that the non-party did not use the regular bill of this case, and in detail, in terms of its color, it is sufficient to make it possible to recognize it as the land. Furthermore, even before the period of discount of each forged bill of this case, the defendant is a financial institution which ordinarily has discounted bank bills, and the defendant requested discount of the above non-party on two occasions from the above non-party, but the above non-party had refused discount on the ground that there is any error in the bill presented by the non-party. Thus, the defendant was forged each forged bill of this case at the time of discount of each forged bill of this case, and the plaintiff could be deemed to have been aware that each of the promissory note of this case was issued and delivered to the defendant with joint and several debt obligations of the business debtor, which is the above non-party, and therefore, the issuance of each of the promissory note of this case by the plaintiff was lawfully delivered to the defendant.

Although the reasoning of the lower judgment’s reasoning is inappropriate, the lower court’s conclusion that each of the promissory notes of this case does not exist is justifiable, and there is no reason to discuss all the issues.

B. Ground of appeal No. 3

According to the records, since the defendant can be known that he was issued and delivered each of the promissory notes of this case from the plaintiff who was deceptioned by the above non-party, the defendant does not constitute a third party under Article 110 (3) of the Civil Code. There is no reason to interpret this.

2. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)