Liability of an endorser with respect to the cause and relation obligations of the endorser, which have been endorsed as a security on a check, in lieu of a borrowed instrument.

If Gap, while borrowing money from other persons, delivered a promissory note and a check in lieu of the lending instrument, and the creditor demands the endorsement of Eul as a collateral for the lending obligation, was sufficiently known and demanded by Eul, it is reasonable to view that Gap, even though the creditor who lends money to Eul was unaware of who was in detail at the time of the act of endorsement, the act of endorsement was done with the intent of expressing his/her intent to jointly and severally guarantee the lending obligation of Eul to the creditor who lent money to Eul, even though the creditor who borrowed money to Eul was unaware of who was in detail at the time of the act of endorsement.

Article 428 of the Civil Code, Article 15 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 18 of the Check Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da123 Decided March 11, 1975, July 22, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu783 Decided September 9, 1986

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 87Na123 delivered on June 16, 1988

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of litigation incurred by the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) lent KRW 8 million to Nonparty 1 on March 13, 1984; (b) upon Nonparty 1’s request, the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 8 million from the Plaintiff and endorsed the face value of KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff for collateral; and (c) affixed the name and seal on the back of the two pages of the face value per 3 million unit unit (issuance of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the U. of the U.S. fire Fighting Equipment; and (d) the Defendant’s above circumstance of endorsement was ordered by the U.S. fire Fighting Station at the time, and carried out the construction, due to the lack of funds, it was assumed that Nonparty 3 was necessary for the Defendant to accept the above KRW 8 million to borrow the above bills and checks, and that it was necessary for the Defendant to accept the above KRW 8 million with the above debt to the Defendant under the premise that Nonparty 1 had no knowledge of the above loan obligation to the Defendant.

However, in this case, when considering the facts established by the court below and the testimony of the non-party 1 at the court of first instance who was rejected by the court below, the defendant delivered the original promissory note and the check in lieu of the loan certificate to the non-party 1, and the creditor of the loan was sufficiently aware of the fact that the non-party 1 borrowed money from another person, and the defendant's demand for the defendant's endorsement was required as a security for the loan obligation, and it was evident that the above non-party 1 performed the act of endorsement as at the time of the original judgment at the request of the above non-party 1. Thus, if the facts are the same, even though the defendant knew the creditor who lent money to the non-party 1 at the time of the above endorsement, the act of endorsement was limited to the creditor who borrowed money from the above non-party 1 and expressed his intent to jointly and severally guarantee the debt of the above non-party 1. Therefore, the defendant is liable for the joint and several guarantee obligation of the above non-party 1's loan amount.

The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is erroneous in the misapprehension of the party's intent by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.

(2) The court below held on December 24, 1984 that the defendant paid KRW 1,00,000 to the plaintiff as the repayment of the loan to the plaintiff by the above non-party 1, but the above KRW 1,000,000 is not proved to have been paid as interest.

However, according to the evidence No. 1 (Receipt) which was not rejected by the court below, it is evident that the defendant paid 1,000,000 won as interest payment on December 24, 1984. The court below's determination that the above amount No. 1,00,000 won was paid as interest payment is not sufficient and it is erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, the argument pointing this out is well-grounded.

2. Next, we examine the defendant's grounds for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that the amount equivalent to the above amount of the above amount of the debt of this case is extinguished due to the fact that the plaintiff received one promissory note of non-party 4's representative director of the Daedong Construction Co., Ltd. on December 4, 1985, and thereafter received the above amount of the face value. However, according to the evidence of this case, the above promissory note was issued to the non-party 1 for the repayment of loan obligations other than the debt of this case at the time of the original purchase of the non-party 1. Thus, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense against the defendant's defense is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of facts that are affected by the decision of the court below

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which reversed and remanded this part of the case to the court below. The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)