(a) Where an endorser of a promissory note bears the responsibility of guarantee for a civil cause obligation;

(b) Whether the filing of a lawsuit against the underlying claim by the drawee of the bill becomes grounds for interrupting the extinctive prescription of the bill;

A. In the process of a bill discount, it cannot be readily concluded that a third party, who is not the client at a discount, borrowed a discount on the bill, and in general, an endorser who endorsed on a promissory note issued by another person, in principle, bears only the obligation arising out of endorsement. However, the endorser is liable to guarantee the obligation arising out of the bill, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the endorser knowingly endorsed that the bill was issued in lieu of the certificate of borrowing, and the endorser knowingly endorsed it to the meaning of guaranteeing the obligation arising out of the civil law.

B. The filing of a lawsuit on the underlying claim by a bill discount cannot be deemed to have exercised the claim itself on the bill discount, and this does not constitute a judicial claim, which is the ground for interruption of extinctive prescription as to the bill discount.

A. Article 428 of the Civil Code: Article 77(1)(Article 15) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 168(b) of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Meu979 delivered on February 14, 1984 (Gong1584,438) (Gong198), 92Da17457 delivered on December 22, 1992 (193Sang, 557). Supreme Court Decision 4293Da748 delivered on November 9, 1961 (19Du975 delivered on April 25, 1967)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Appellant (Law Firm Han-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 93Na1954 delivered on October 29, 1993

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

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below revealed that the plaintiff made a discount to the defendant, but it is clear that the plaintiff directly caused the bill to the defendant, and that the defendant demanded that the bill discount be made only by giving an endorsement to each of the Promissory Notes in this case, and that the defendant thought that he would not bear any burden, and that he made an endorsement on each of the Three Promissory Notes in this case. It is understood that the purport of the judgment is not that the defendant did not have an intention to make an endorsement, but that he did not have an intention to assume any responsibility for the cause other than the responsibility as the endorsement of the Promissory Notes in this case. Therefore, it is clear that the judgment of the court below did not recognize the defendant's act of endorsement itself, but it is inconsistent with the reason for recognizing

2. On the second ground for appeal

In the process of discount on a bill, it cannot be readily concluded that a third party, who is not the applicant for discount, borrowed a discount on the bill. In general, an endorser who endorsed a promissory note issued by another person, in principle, bears only the obligation arising from the act of endorsement. However, in special circumstances, such as where an endorser endorsements a bill issued in lieu of a loan certificate in a manner that guarantees a civil cause obligation with knowledge of such circumstances, the endorser bears the responsibility to guarantee the underlying obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da17457 delivered on December 22, 192). Thus, the court below held that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence by finding that the non-party borrowed a discount or guaranteed the above non-party’s obligation in the process of receiving discount on the bill by requesting the Plaintiff to pay the bill to the Plaintiff. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as seen above. The court below’s determination that the Defendant’s endorsement of this case’s bill cannot be deemed as a guarantee for the Defendant’s obligation.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s right of recourse against the Defendant was extinguished by prescription on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right of recourse against the Defendant was extinguished by the lapse of one year after the date of the payment of the said Promissory Notes, on December 17, 1991, on the ground that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 6, 1992, only a claim for a loan, which is a underlying claim, without filing a claim for the amount of the Promissory Notes, but also an alternative claim was filed on May 10, 1993 in addition to the claim for the amount of the Promissory Notes, which was later than one year after the date of payment of the said Promissory Notes.

The filing of a lawsuit with respect to the underlying claim by the drawee of a bill cannot be deemed to have exercised the claim itself on the bill discount, and it does not constitute a judicial claim, which is the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription as to the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da75, Apr. 25, 1967). The judgment of the court below with the same purport is justifiable, and the decision of the court below is just, and the purport of the judgment of the court below is that the filing of a lawsuit with respect to the check check money has the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription as to the underlying claim, and therefore, it cannot be a proper precedent, since the issue of this case is different.

In addition, the circumstance that the bill discount was clearly stated in the complaint of this case cannot be viewed as the purport that the loan claim in the complaint of this case at the same time exercises the right to a promissory note, and the theory that the above loan claim and the promissory note payment claim are merely a difference in the method of attack and defense and do not differ in the subject matter of lawsuit is merely an independent argument and cannot be accepted.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)