Time of determining the amount of commitment

It is not necessary to set up a protest for payment in order to prove the fact that there is a delay liability to the advancer, as well as to prove the fact that the advancer is not a person who is obligated to pay the amount of punishment absolutely, such as the transferee of the above acceptance type, and is not a person obligated to pay the amount of punishment, even though the holder failed to make a presentation of punishment for payment to the advancer.

Articles 28, 44, and 77 of the Criminal Code

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Kang Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, 55 civil defense 535 delivered on January 13, 1956

The main height is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant 1's representative's ground of appeal is dismissed by the defendant's public prosecution, and the contents of the Promissory Notes No. 1 (this case's main obligation) and the testimony of the non-party 1 as well as the purport of pleading by the parties. In light of the above, the defendant's joint and several liability when the non-party 1 issues the Promissory Notes No. 1 as alleged in the plaintiff's principal date and deliver it to the plaintiff with his signature and seal affixed thereto, and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff became the holder of the promissory Notes No. 1 as well as the non-party 1 as the non-party 1's joint and several liability holder's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 6's main obligation to the non-party 1 as well as the non-party 1's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 1 as the non-party 6's independent joint and several liability holder's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 1 as well as the non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's signature and seal affixed.

However, since evidence cooking and fact-finding belong to the whole jurisdiction of the court below, it cannot be accepted unless it is in violation of the logical rules or the empirical rule. In this case, if the court below established the records and the original judgment, it is hard to find out that the obligation of this case was effective by partially cooking the testimony of Non-party 1 of the witness non-party 1, and that the full amount of the reward has not been extinguished, merely because the court below did not discover that the lawsuit was unlawful, it cannot be accepted. The second ground for appeal No. 2 did not state a certificate of non-payment as to the Promissory Notes, nor did the plaintiff exempt the obligation to prepare a protest, and therefore, the plaintiff must pay the Promissory Notes at the payment date and request the payment to the non-party 1 who is the defendant and the principal debtor at the payment date. However, although the court below did not clearly dispute the plaintiff's second, it is clear that the defendant's non-party 1 did not deny the name of the non-party 1's non-party 1 from the beginning.

In this case, it is not necessary to establish a certificate of refusal of payment even if the holder of this case does not have any obligation to pay the sum of the sum of the sum of the sum of the sum of the sum of the capital, such as the transferee of the above sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of the capital sum of

The issue is that the law on the responsibility of the guarantor and the ex officio of the court below can not be adopted, as it is against the Act on the Responsibilities of the receiver and the guarantor at the time of the prestigious city.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is groundless and it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allotment of Kim Dong-dong