[1] Whether an endorsement on a promissory note issued or transferred by another person bears the responsibility to guarantee the obligation arising therefrom (affirmative with qualification), and the method of determining the liability (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that the endorser of a promissory note is liable to guarantee the obligation arising from the cause

[1] Article 428 of the Civil Act, Articles 15 and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 428 of the Civil Act, Articles 15 and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da5397 delivered on August 26, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2524) Supreme Court Decision 98Da2051 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1981) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da55598 delivered on April 12, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1108)

Uniform Industry (Attorney Transferred-type et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Maximum Notes

Daejeon District Court Decision 2003Na8044 Delivered on May 7, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s endorsement made on April 30, 199 on the Promissory Notes Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Seimul Industry”), sold cement in an amount equivalent to KRW 5.28 million on April 30, 199, KRW 20 million on September 30, 199, KRW 25.3 million on September 30, 200, KRW 25.3 million on the above sales proceeds, respectively, and that the Simulgue Industry sold cement in an amount equivalent to KRW 2.5.3 million on February 28, 2002 on the Promissory Notes Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Simulgue Industry”). The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the aforesaid promissory Notes’s endorsement made on February 28, 2002 was a joint and several surety for the payment of some of the sales proceeds.

2. However, the above decision of the court below is hard to accept.

A. In principle, a person who makes an endorsement on a promissory note issued, endorsed, or transferred by another person shall be liable only for the obligations under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act due to the act of endorsement, but in special circumstances where it is deemed that he/she has made an endorsement to the effect that he/she would guarantee an obligation under the civil law that is the cause of the issuance, endorsement, or transfer of the Promissory Notes to the creditor of the Promissory Notes, he/she shall be liable for a guarantee under the civil law against the creditor of the issuer (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da5598, Apr. 12, 2002, etc.). The existence of such special circumstances shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the relevant circumstances, such as the actual reversion of profits arising from the legal relations, the cause of the occurrence of the obligation, the relationship between the creditor of the obligation and the debtor,

B. According to the records, since the defendant assumed office as a director of the mining industry around April 15, 1999, he operated the mining industry jointly with the representative director Kim Jong-soo until May 8, 200. After the director's appointment, the defendant found the plaintiff company several times together with Kim Jong-soo and discussed the issue of being supplied with cement from the plaintiff company. As a result, the mining industry was supplied with cement accounts as stated in the judgment of the court below. The mining industry after the representative director of the plaintiff company at the time of endorsement and transfer for the payment of the cement sales proceeds is a juristic person, the mining industry is guaranteed the claim if it is difficult to secure the payment of the above promissorysory note, and the defendant, who is the representative director of the Kim Jong-soo, actually shared with the defendant, has been able to fully endorse the defendant's credit in the name of the defendant at the time of the above-mentioned request for the sale of the above cement products, and the defendant's remaining at the time of the above request of 20th executive officer at the time of endorsement.

C. Nevertheless, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the defendant's endorsement on the above promissory note without any special reasons is based on the intent to jointly and severally guarantee the obligation for the sale proceeds of cement, which is the underlying obligation. Such measures are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability for guarantee for the underlying obligation of the endorser of a promissory note, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the incomplete deliberation, or in the misapprehension of facts contrary

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)