[1] The case interpreting that a guarantee declaration was made in case where a merchant bank's name and affixed the seal of representative director on the rubber stamp, "I would like to pay the principal and interest on the maturity date" on the CP kept in the passbook

[2] Whether the restriction on the guarantee act of a merchant bank under Article 11 (1) of the Merchant Banks Business Management Guidelines established by the Minister of Finance and Economy, who is in the position of supervising business affairs of a merchant bank under the former Merchant Banks Act, is effective

[1] The case interpreting that where a merchant bank opened a bill custody account in the name of the bank in the course of selling at discount commercial papers at the bank, issued the bill custody account in the bank, and then issued the bill custody account in the passbook, "the CP kept in this passbook is guaranteed by the bank or the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, and our representative director shall pay the principal and interest at the expiration of the maturity date", and delivers the seal of the representative director after affixing the seal of the representative director, it shall be interpreted that it expressed its intent to guarantee the payment of the principal and interest on all

[2] Article 11 (1) of the Merchant Banks Management Guidelines established by the Minister of Finance and Economy to supervise the business of a merchant bank pursuant to Article 21 of the former Merchant Banks Act (amended by Act No. 5503 of Jan. 13, 198), the purpose of which is to restrict the merchant bank's guarantee act is to place the merchant bank's business of a profit-making corporation in principle at its own will, but it is to restrict the merchant bank's business in certain cases due to the public nature of the merchant bank's business, thereby promoting the sound management of the merchant bank. Therefore, this provision cannot be viewed as the so-called "effective regulation", and therefore, even if it was performed in violation

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 21 of the former Merchant Banks Act (amended by Act No. 5503 of Jan. 13, 1998), Article 11(1) of the Merchant Banks Business Operation Guidelines

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da31493 delivered on November 10, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 1) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da56116 delivered on December 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 488)

Han Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Lee Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Law Firm Global Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Im-sung et al., Counsel for the bankruptcy)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na50328 delivered on October 11, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal, or by misapprehending its authority, it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, since it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the act of violating the legal principles as to the act of violating the legal principles as to the act of violating the legal principles as to the act of violating the law, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The court below did not err in misapprehending the legal principles as to the act of violating the legal principles as to the act of violating the law, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. The purpose of Article 11 (1) of the Merchant Banks Management Guidelines established by the Minister of Finance and Economy as a supervisory position of a merchant bank pursuant to Article 21 of the former Merchant Banks Act (amended by Act No. 5503, Jan. 13, 1998) is to restrict a merchant bank's guarantee act under Article 11 (1) of the Merchant Banks Management Guidelines, which is a profit-making corporation, in principle, the business of the merchant bank is originally entrusted to its own will, but it is intended to restrict a merchant bank's business in certain cases due to the public nature of the merchant bank's business, thereby promoting the sound management, etc. of the merchant bank. Therefore, this provision shall not be deemed the so-called effective regulation. Therefore, even if a guarantee act was performed in violation of this provision, the validity thereof shall not be affected (see Supreme Court Decision

In the same purport, the court below decided that the act of guaranteeing payment of the principal and interest of the commercial paper of this case cannot be deemed null and void, and further, rejected the defendant's assertion that the payment guarantee against the principal and interest of the commercial paper of this case should be taken into account by the plaintiff's negligence, even though it is well aware that the plaintiff's claim of this case was in violation of the above provision on the ground that it is held liable

3. In addition, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the payment guarantee obligation of the Korean Commercial Paper for the reason that the payment guarantee obligation of the Korean Commercial Paper for the Korean Commercial Paper was established on November 27, 1995 and has been maintained as it was established on December 10, 1997 and it became null and void on the premise that the payment guarantee obligation of the Korean Commercial Paper was conducted after the business suspension order for the Korean Commercial Paper issued on December 10, 1997, under the premise that it was conducted after the business suspension order for the Korean Commercial Paper issued on November 27, 1995, and that it was rejected by the defendant pursuant to Article 62 subparagraphs 1, 2, and 5 of the Bankruptcy Act, or that it was denied by the defendant pursuant to Article 95 of the Bankruptcy Act, or that it was not possible for the plaintiff to claim the payment guarantee obligation of the Korean Commercial Paper against the plaintiff under Article 95 of the Bankruptcy Act.

4. Meanwhile, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until the plaintiff received the original copy of the commercial paper of this case on the ground that the plaintiff did not receive the original copy of the commercial paper of this case from Han Sejong, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)