The issuer of a promissory note shall have the right to claim the return of the accident reported security deposit

If the Plaintiff, who is the holder of a promissory note, filed a lawsuit claiming a promissory note against the issuer and subsequently rendered a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the issuer, the issuer cannot exercise the right to claim the return of the accident reported amount deposited when filing the report of misappropriation, and therefore, the bank is not obligated to pay the said security amount to the Plaintiff, even if the issuer received the entire claim for the return of the said security amount. If the Plaintiff is the lawful holder of the said promissory note, the bank shall directly seek the payment of the said security amount against

Articles 539 and 702 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff

Choung Bank et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee and 8 others

Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na17039 delivered on January 12, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party, who is the issuer of each of the Promissory Notes of this case, shall, upon filing a report of acceptance of each of the Promissory Notes of this case with macrofics, pay the above amount of the face value of each of the Promissory Notes of this case to the issuer of the Promissory Notes of this case, and shall not be exempted from the disposition of suspension of transaction at a clearing house by concealing the shortage of funds, and in the case where the holder of each of the Promissory Notes of this case is proved to be a legitimate holder, as above, the amount equivalent to the face value of each of the Promissory Notes of this case as mentioned above shall be deposited as a security deposit in order to cover the money for the payment of the Promissory Notes of this case. The non-party, who is the issuer of each of the Promissory Notes of this case, shall be deemed to be a legitimate holder of the Promissory Notes of this case.

On the basis of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and there is no illegality in the judgment. The lawsuit is that the plaintiff is the legitimate last holder of the Promissory Notes in this case, and if so, each defendant bank must seek the payment of the above amount directly against each defendant bank and not claim the issuer's right to claim the refund of the above amount. The arguments are without merit.

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)