A person who has issued a promissory note for another person's financial or debt security may not oppose a defense (personal defense) that it was a financing bill issued regardless of the absolute objection, even if it was acquired by endorsement in good faith or bad faith by a third party who has taken over it.

A person who has issued a promissory note for another person's financial or debt security may not oppose a defense (personal defense) that it was a financing bill issued regardless of the absolute objection, even if it was acquired by endorsement in good faith or bad faith by a third party who has taken over it.

Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 20 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Busan District Court Decision 68Na514, 515 delivered on May 15, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) attorney are examined.

It is reasonable to interpret that the issuer of a promissory note for another person's financial or debt security does not bear the responsibility for the promissory note, but such a reason is that it can only be set up against the beneficiary against the beneficiary, and that it is issued with the intent to bear the obligation on the promissory note against the third party to whom the promissory note was transferred. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the third party's bona fide or bad faith did not set up against the plaintiff's defense that the delivery of the promissory note was issued regardless of the beneficiary's opinion, even if the acquisition was done by endorsement after the due date, it is reasonable to interpret that the delivery of the promissory note was not possible (personal defense). The plaintiff's promise was issued and delivered as a so-called financing bill for the purpose of care of the non-party's financing convenience, i.e., it is non-party's obligation based on the promissory note, and it is not reasonable to accept the conclusion of the court below's decision that the Defendants acquired the promissory note in this case without the plaintiff's argument that it was 16.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court