If a bank continuously purchased a bill of exchange in the course of purchasing a bill of exchange issued between the same issuer and the payer but the settlement of payment is delayed, whether the insurer of the export bill of exchange is liable for any loss incurred thereby.

If a bank purchases a bill of exchange in succession, even if it is difficult to expect a smooth settlement in the future due to a delay of payment by a drawee in the process of purchasing a bill of exchange issued by the same issuer and a payer, it is unfair that the export bill insurer is liable to compensate for any loss incurred thereby.

Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act

Korean Commercial Bank, Inc.

The Korea Export Insurance Corporation

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 148,102,403 won with 25 percent interest per annum from August 20, 1991 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition and judgment

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleading in each testimony of Kim Jong-sung and there is no counter-proof as follows: Gap evidence 1-4 (Notice of Causing Loss), Eul evidence 1-1-2 (Terms and Conditions), Eul evidence 2-1-2 (Notice of Purchasing Bills), Eul evidence 2-1-4 (Notice of Purchasing Bills), Eul evidence 2-1-4 (Each Notice of Purchasing Bills), and each testimony of Kim Jong-chul.

(1) The Plaintiff is the non-party export insurance bank of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party bank”). The non-party bank concluded an export bill insurance contract with the non-party export insurance company of the Republic of Korea on July 3, 1992 established by the Defendant on behalf of the non-party export insurance company in accordance with the provisions of the Export Insurance Act, with the insurance period from January 1, 1990 to December 31 of the same year; however, when the Plaintiff, a policyholder, purchased a bill of exchange from the issuer of the bill of exchange in accordance with the terms and conditions of export bill insurance, if the Plaintiff purchased the bill of exchange from the issuer of the bill of exchange within five business days from the purchase date of the bill of exchange, the export bill insurance relationship was established on the purchase date of the bill of exchange, and when the Plaintiff was unable to receive the due amount of the bill of exchange due to emergency risk or credit risk or paid by the Plaintiff after receiving the bill of exchange, the non-party bank will compensate for the loss suffered by the Plaintiff within the limit

(2) In the case of a bill of exchange in the same list on January 18, 1990, the Plaintiff purchased it, and then issued four copies of a bill of exchange in the annexed sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "bill of exchange in this case") to the non-party 1 (Khandor America 1 nc. hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1") in the U.S. on the non-party 25th of the same year on the bill of exchange in the same list as the issue date on January 24, 199; the date of issuance on the bill of exchange in the same list as the issue date on January 25 of the same year on the bill of exchange in the same list as the issue date on January 29 of the same year; and the date of issuance on the bill of exchange in the same list as the issue date on January 29 of the same year on the same date on the same date on the bill of exchange in the same list as the purchase date on February 24 of the same year.

(3) On August 20, 1991, the Plaintiff notified the non-party bank of the refusal of payment on August 20, 1991, as the payment was refused from the non-party Kando, the drawee.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, who comprehensively taken over the rights and obligations of the non-party bank, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay the plaintiff the insurance money equivalent to 90% of the total amount of the bill of exchange in this case for which the plaintiff is not entitled to receive due date according to the provisions of the

2. The parties' defense or assertion and judgment

Before the purchase of the bill of exchange in this case, the plaintiff purchased the bill of exchange in the Form No. 2, which was issued by the plaintiff as an underwriter of the non-party 1, and the bill of exchange in this case was not paid on the expiration date, and purchased the bill of exchange in this case 20 days after the expiration date. Thus, if a policyholder under Article 20 (1) 5 of the Export Insurance Clause purchases the bill of exchange in succession with the same issuer of the same bill of exchange and the payer of the bill of exchange, it constitutes the terms and conditions that it is exempted from liability for losses arising from the bill of exchange purchased 20 days after the expiration of 20 days from the due date of the first purchase. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the bill of exchange in the Schedule No. 2, as the bill of exchange in the Schedule No. 2, had been extended until the expiration date after the purchase date of the bill of exchange in this case. The first sale of the bill of exchange in this case means only the first sale of the bill of exchange, and it is not the first expiration date of maturity.

In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff purchased an export bill with 0 insured against No. 1; (b) the insured against No. 2; (c) the insured against No. 3; (d) the insured against No. 5; and (e., the insured against No. 6; and (d) the insured against No. 9; (e., the insured against No. 1; (e., the insured against No. 2); and (e., the insured against No. 9; (e., the insured against No. 2); and (e., the insured against No. 1) the insured against No. 9; and (e., the insured against No. 2) the insured against No. 9; and (e., the insured against No. 2) the insured against No. 1; and (e) the insured against No. 2, the insured against No. 9; and (e) the insured against No. 2, the insured against No. 9; and (e) the insured against No. 2, the insured against No.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost, and it is decided as per Disposition (attached Form omitted).

Judge Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)