The nature of the accident reporting security money deposited by the issuer of the bill and the due method of exercising the rights of the due holder of the bill.

Unlike general deposit claims, in cases where the issuer of a bill of exchange intends to guarantee that the issuer of the bill of exchange does not conceal the shortage of the payment of the bill and evade the disposition of the suspension of transaction, and the right on the bill holder’s bill is verified, unlike the bill’s deposit claims, the issuer of the bill can exercise his/her right to claim the return only when the conditions prescribed by the provisions of the Seoul Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, or the agreement for the disposal of the reported amount of accident, entered into with the bank that is entrusted with the payment of the money, i.e., when the bill holder is proved to be a legitimate right holder, the issuer cannot exercise his/her right to claim the return of the reported amount. Accordingly, the legitimate holder of the bill can seek the payment directly against the bank, but cannot claim the return of the bill against the bank on the ground that it received the entire right to claim the return of the bill.

Articles 539 and 702 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da34967 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1163), Supreme Court Decision 94Da16816 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3069), Supreme Court Decision 94Da40321 delivered on January 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1132)

Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Busan District Court Decision 93Na19211 delivered on July 29, 1994

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the records, the non-party, who is the issuer of the Promissory Notes, requested the payment suspension of the amount of the Promissory Notes with the report on accidents on the grounds of theft or loss of the Promissory Notes, guarantee that the issuer of the Promissory Notes does not cover the shortage of funds for the payment of the Promissory Notes and evade the disposition of the suspension of transactions, unlike the general deposit claims. If the rights of the holder of the Promissory Notes are confirmed, the issuer of the Promissory Notes shall exercise his right to request the return only when the conditions of the original adjudication are satisfied, i.e., when the holder of the Promissory Notes were proved to be not a legitimate holder. Thus, the issuer cannot exercise his right to request the return of the Promissory Notes with the order of the non-party, which was issued to the bank directly against the bank, due to the lack of funds for the payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes and the non-party's right to request the return of the Promissory Notes. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the non-party's right to request the return of the issued Promissory Notes.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents that point out the place of issue are different from this case, and it is inappropriate to rely on this case.

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)