[1] In a case where a bill is received by means of securing payment of the underlying claim, whether the exercise of the underlying claim is effective to interrupt the statute of limitations (negative)

[2] In a case where a bill is received by means of securing payment of the underlying claim, whether it is effective to interrupt extinctive prescription of the underlying claim (affirmative)

[1] In cases where a bill has been received by means of securing payment of a underlying claim, the obligee may exercise his/her right at his/her option, separately from the underlying claim and the bill, and the claim based on the underlying claim cannot be deemed to have been exercised solely by the fact that the claim was filed based on the underlying claim. Therefore, the statute

[2] In a case where a bill is received by the method of securing payment of the underlying claim, such bill is received by the means of payment of the underlying claim for the same benefit economically, and its exercise of the underlying claim is intended to realize the underlying claim, and the statute of limitations of the underlying claim is not only to realize the claim, but also to realize the right of the obligee, even if the obligee suspends the statute of limitations of the underlying claim due to the relationship falling under the personal defense of the obligor in the lawsuit claiming the amount of the bill, it is unreasonable to deem that the statute of limitations of the underlying claim is to be interrupted if the obligee objects not to make a claim based on the underlying claim but to the claim based on the underlying claim, and such legal principle likewise applies to the case where the obligee uses the right by provisionally seizing the obligor’s property with the right to

[1] Article 168 of the Civil Code, Articles 7 and 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 168 of the Civil Code, Articles 7 and 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 67Da75 decided Apr. 25, 1967 (No. 15-1, 342), Supreme Court Decision 93Da5922 decided Dec. 2, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 426) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 4293Da748 decided Nov. 9, 1961 (No. 9, 72)

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 98Na3939 delivered on February 12, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on November 2, 1982, the plaintiff lent KRW 25,00,000 to the non-party, and the non-party's wife died on September 18, 1987 and succeeded to 1/3 of the non-party's debt. Further, the court below rejected the plaintiff's second defense on January 4, 1988 as to the plaintiff's second defense against the non-party's claim against the non-party's limited partnership company's ○○ as the plaintiff's right to share was suspended due to the provisional seizure of the defendant's inheritance's claim against the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party limited partnership company's non-party limited to the non-party's non-party limited partnership company's non-party limited to the non-party's claim against the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's right to claim against the loan of this case.

In light of the above, in a case where a bill was received in a way to secure the payment of the underlying claim as in this case, the obligee can exercise his right at his option separately from the underlying claim and the claim based on the underlying claim cannot be deemed to have been exercised by itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 67Da75, Apr. 25, 1967; 93Da5922, Dec. 2, 1994). On the other hand, these bills were received as the means of payment of the underlying claim for the same benefit, and the exercise of the underlying claim is aimed at realizing the underlying claim, and the extinctive prescription of the underlying claim becomes unreasonable result in the obligee’s interruption of the extinctive prescription period due to the obligor’s personal defense in the lawsuit claiming the amount of the bill, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the obligee’s right cannot be realized by the obligor’s personal defense, and thus, the above legal principle applies to the obligee’s right to the claim under provisional seizure.

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's second defense from a different view constitutes an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principle of the interruption of extinctive prescription, and it is clear that such an unlawful act had influenced the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)