(a) Whether the issuer of the so-called financing bill can stand up against the defense that it was a financing bill issued without compensation to the third party to whom it was transferred;

B. Whether the issuer of a financing bill may set up a defense against the financing bill, if the third party who acquired the financing bill knew of the fact that the bill was issued as the financing bill at the time of acquisition and that the secured bill issued in exchange was rejected.

(c) Whether it is possible to set up against the present holder of the bill with the reason that the endorsement before the transfer of the bill could not be set up against the person who again transferred the bill without cancelling it.

(a) A person who has issued a promissory note for financial or debt security of another person shall not be liable to the melting party unless he/she is liable to the melting party, but shall not oppose against the third party who has acquired the note with a defense that it was a financing bill issued without compensation without asking for good faith or bad faith.

(b) In cases where a melting party delivers a promissory note of the same amount as its face value to a lender in exchange for a financing bill, if the third party to whom the financing bill was transferred knows that the said bill was issued as the financing bill at the time of acquisition and that the payment was refused, the issuer of the financing bill may oppose the third party by defense of the financing bill.

C. There is no change in the fact that: (a) an endorsement before and after the transfer of a bill, a person who again transferred the bill without cancelling it, is not obligated to enforce it as an endorser; (b) but is the holder on the bill, who has transferred his rights as the former holder; and (c) as for the reason that the transferor to the present holder had acted in good faith at the time of acquisition of the bill, it cannot be asserted against the present holder on the ground that the present holder was aware of the reason at the time of acquisition of the bill, and thus, cannot be asserted against the present

Articles 17 and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

(a)B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 93Da58721 delivered on May 10, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 79Da479 delivered on October 30, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 89Meu20740 delivered on April 25, 1990

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 94Na3344 delivered on September 7, 1994

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

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. A person who has issued a promissory note for another person's financial or debt security shall not be liable for a bill against the beneficiary, but against a third party who has taken over the note, it cannot be asserted by defense that it was a financing bill issued without asking for good faith or bad faith (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da58721 delivered on May 10, 1994 and 79Da479 delivered on October 30, 1979).

However, in a case where the bill is delivered to the lender in exchange for the loan bill and the amount equivalent to its face value is delivered to the lender as a security, if the third party who acquired the loan bill knew that the bill was issued as the loan bill at the time of the transfer and that the payment was refused, the issuer of the loan bill may oppose the third party as a defense of the loan bill (see the above 93Da58721, Apr. 25, 1990; 89∑20740, Apr. 25, 1990).

Meanwhile, there is no change in the fact that the person who received endorsement before transferring the bill and thereafter transferred the bill without cancelling it, is not obligated to enforce it as an endorser, but it was the holder on the bill who transferred rights as an electronic holder of the present holder. As for the reason that the transferor to the present holder had acted in good faith at the time of acquiring the bill, even though the present holder was aware of the reason at the time of acquiring the bill, it cannot be asserted against the present holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da58721, Feb. 1, 199; 89Meu20740, supra).

2. According to the legal determination by the court below, the non-party delivered the bill of this case from the defendant for the self-financing, and as a security, the defendant issued and delivered seven copies of the bill of this case to the non-party Gyeong Fiber Co., Ltd., the representative director of which he is the non-party 2, and then delivered and discounted the bill of this case with endorsement in the name of the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2 (hereinafter the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, who was aware of the bill of this case's bill.

Ultimately, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the cutting of financing notes and their personal defenses, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, solely on the ground that the plaintiff was aware of the above circumstances, and the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the cutting of financing notes and their personal defenses, and there is a reason to discuss this point.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)