Liability for the cause-related obligations of the endorsers, which have been endorsed as security, in lieu of a certificate of borrowing;

Where the drawer of a bill issues a bill in lieu of a certificate of borrowing money from others and the drawer makes an endorsement on the bill at the request of the drawer, with full knowledge of the fact that it is required by the drawer to mean as a security for the above lending obligation, it is reasonable to view that the endorsement was made in the manner that the endorser expresses his/her intent to jointly and severally guarantee the obligation for borrowing money to the creditor who lends money to the drawer, even though the endorser was unaware of the obligee who lends money to the above drawer.

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

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2452 Decided March 28, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu783 Decided July 22, 1986

[Judgment of the court below]

Eastern Inc., Ltd.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 85Na1794 delivered on March 26, 1986

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. For its reasons, the court below acknowledged that, upon introduction by Nonparty 2, the non-party 1 was liable for the payment of the promissory note at the face value of five million won on June 15, 1984, and on September 29, 1984, the Korean Bank at the place of payment, as the defendant at the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the bank, and the bank with both the issue date, the issue date, the place, and the place of payment column as the defendant public letter is accepted by the defendant as the blanker in the first endorsement column for the purpose of establishing a promissory note and strengthening the credit, the non-party 1 was liable for the debt of the plaintiff as a joint and several surety by borrowing five million won from the plaintiff to the non-party 2 who represented the plaintiff, and thus, the court held that the defendant was liable for the debt of the non-party 1 under the Civil Code for the payment of the plaintiff's debt guaranteed by the non-party 1 as a joint and several surety.

2. The lower court’s view on the scope of liability of a person who endorsed on a promissory note issued by another person is justifiable as a general theory.

However, when the court below's decision was confirmed and the testimony of Non-party 2, non-party 1 at the court of first instance, non-party 2, 1, and non-party 2 who did not reject the court below's decision, the representative director of the defendant company issued the promissory note in this case on behalf of the non-party 1 in order to borrow money from the non-party 1. The promissory note in this case issued by the non-party 1 is issued on behalf of the same non-party in order to obtain money from the non-party 1, and the issuer's demand for the defendant's endorsement was required as a security for the borrowed money, and it is sufficient to recognize that the non-party 1 had performed the act of endorsement as at the time of original judgment upon the request of the above non-party 1. Thus, even if the defendant had been aware of the specific intention of the creditor who lent money to the non-party 1 at the time of the above endorsement act, it is reasonable to view that the non-party 1's act of endorsement was a joint and several surety's obligation.

3. The appeal is reasonable, and this constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. 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 participating judges

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)