(a) Method of transferring the bill which is prohibited from endorsement;

(b) Whether the transferee of the bill, which is prohibited from endorsement, is liable to the transferee of the bill, where the transferee entered the name of the drawee in the name of the drawee without the consent of the guarantor of the bill and

C. Whether the words prohibiting endorsement include a special agreement prohibiting transfer by the method of transferring designated assignment (negative)

D. Whether, with respect to the transfer of a promissory note by the method of transferring a nominative claim, the issuer, as the principal obligor, must meet separate requirements for setting up against the guarantor (negative)

A. Promissory notes, in which the text of the prohibition of endorsement is written, are not lost by the transfer itself, but can be transferred by the method of assignment of nominative claim and by its validity, and in this case, the promissory notes must be delivered (delivery) in addition to meeting the requirements for counterclaim (Notice or Consent) under Article 450 of the Civil Code, and the promissory notes shall be presented for payment, and the promissory notes shall be recovered at the time of payment.

B. In a case where the name of the payee is changed without the consent of the guarantor of the bill in transferring the right to the non-endorsed bill, it constitutes an alteration of the bill in relation to the guarantor of the bill, and the guarantor of the bill is not liable for the guarantee of the bill against the changed payee, or in a case where the payee mentioned in such alteration satisfies requirements for setting up against him by transferring the right to the bill by means of a designated transfer as a part

C. Since the prohibition of endorsement of a promissory note does not deprive negotiable itself of its nature, it does not necessarily mean that the stipulation prohibiting transfer of rights under the promissory note by way of a designated transfer of assignment does not necessarily include the stipulation of prohibition of endorsement without any other declaration of intent.

(d) In the case of transfer of the right under a promissory note in accordance with the method of assignment of nominative claim, the obligor cannot set up against the obligor unless he satisfies the requirements for setting up against the obligor under Article 450(1) of the Civil Code, or if he satisfies the requirements for setting up against the issuer who is the principal obligor, he may assert against the surety by virtue of the effect of the principal claim assignment even if he does not meet the requirements for setting up against the surety.

a.b)Article 77 and article 11(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, article 450(1)(b) of the Civil Code; article 32(1)(b) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act;

D. Supreme Court Decision 75Da1100 Delivered on April 13, 1976

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea-U.S. Law Office (Law Office of Korea-U.S.)

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 88Na201 delivered on June 14, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

A promissory note stating the terms and conditions of prohibition of endorsement shall not be transferred by means of endorsement under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, but even a promissory note which is prohibited from endorsement does not lose its original nature, so it may be transferred by means of the method of transferring nominative claim in accordance with Articles 77(2) and 11(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act and its validity and validity. In this case, a promissory note shall be delivered (delivery or consent) in addition to meeting the requirements for counterclaim under Article 450 of the Civil Act, and shall be presented for payment, and the promissory note shall be recovered when it is paid, so it shall not result in unreasonable consequences.

In addition, if the name of the receiver of a promissory note is changed without the consent of the guarantor of the promissory note in transferring the rights of the promissory note as above, it constitutes an alteration of the bill in relation to the guarantor of the promissory note, and the guarantor of the promissory note is not liable for the guarantee of the bill with respect to the receiver mentioned on the changed bill, or if the receiver mentioned on the changed bill satisfies the requirements for setting up against the transferee of the rights (a bailee after the changed entry) according to the accompanied nature of the guaranteed obligation. Therefore, there is no ground to discuss this issue.

With respect to the second ground:

Since the prohibition of endorsement of a promissory note does not deprive the issuer of its defenses against the payee or the system used to prevent the continued increase in the amount of redemption, the prohibition of endorsement of a promissory note itself is not an deprivation of its transferable nature. Therefore, only the fact that the stipulation of prohibition of endorsement without any other expression of intent is stated, and it does not necessarily mean that a special clause prohibiting the transfer of rights under the promissory note by the method of transferring nominative claim is included in the transfer of nominative claim. Therefore

With respect to the third point:

In the case of a transfer of the right to a promissory note in accordance with the method of transfer of nominative claim, it shall not be possible to oppose the obligor unless the requirements for setting up against the obligor under Article 450(1) of the Civil Act are met. However, if the issuer of a promissory note, who is the principal obligor, satisfies the requirements for setting up against the issuer of the promissory note, it shall be possible to oppose the guarantor as the effect of the transfer of the principal claim even if it does not meet the requirements for setting up against the surety (Notice, Acceptance). (See Supreme Court Decision 75Da1100 delivered on April

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the non-party 1, the addressee of the Promissory Notes, transferred the right on the Promissory Notes to the plaintiff, and the non-party 1, the drawer, entered the payee's column into the plaintiff and delivered it to the plaintiff. However, if the facts are the same, the obligor's consent to the transfer of the right on the Promissory Notes shall be deemed to have consented to the transfer of the right on the Promissory Notes. Thus, the requirements for setting up against the transfer of the right on the Promissory Notes shall be satisfied, and the plaintiff, the transferee, the defendant

With respect to the fourth point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's guarantee of the Promissory Notes was to secure the payment for the above 80-day supply of the Promissory Notes from the non-party 8 to the non-party 7, and that the plaintiff took over the status of continuously supplying the Promissory Notes from the non-party 8 to the non-party 8, and then it was to conversion the Promissory Notes to the plaintiff's claim as security, and it cannot be offered as security for the non-party 9's payment obligations to the non-party 8-party 1 to the non-party 8-party 9's new supply of the Promissory Notes to the non-party 8-party 9's new supply of the Promissory Notes to the non-party 1 to the non-party 7-party 9's new supply of the Promissory Notes to the non-party 8-party 1's new supply of the Promissory Notes to the extent of 0-party 1's new supply of the Promissory Notes to the non-party 2's new supply.

In addition, the facts are identical, and the defendant's purpose is to contribute to the balanced development of the national economy by guaranteeing corporate debts which are corporations established under the Credit Guarantee Fund Act and facilitating the distribution of funds by guaranteeing corporate debts which lack security capacity (Article 1 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act) and the prohibition of endorsement of bills is intended to reservation defense against the payee and the bill can be transferred freely unless otherwise stipulated (ground of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3). In this case, the defendant's assertion that the payment of bill guarantee for the non-party's new trade was made for the non-party's new trade, and in this case, it is reasonable for the court below to limit that the non-party's payment should continue to be the supplier (creditor) and to hold the new position of the supplier of the non-party's new goods to be determined in the future (Article 1 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act) to purchase the non-party's new goods to purchase the non-party's new goods (the plaintiff's new goods to purchase the non-party's new goods within the scope of 0000 mer's new goods).

Therefore, in the case of this case, the defendant may assert the termination of the credit guarantee relationship as a collateral guarantee on the ground of the change of the creditor under the basic contract, and if so, the defendant should be liable for the credit guarantee until the original agreed time ( March 27, 1987) in relation to the plaintiff, unless it is so, unless it is so determined. However, if the defendant has any defense against the non-party 1, who is the original creditor, the plaintiff should exercise it.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)