If a promissory note is issued with knowledge of the fact that payment is not due, it shall constitute tort and shall cause damage to the amount equivalent to the promissory note when the payment is refused.

If a promissory note is issued with knowledge of the fact that payment is not due, it will cause damage to the amount equivalent to the amount of the promissory note when the tort is established and the payment is refused.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

○ ○ Private Teaching Institutes

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na624 delivered on July 23, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 71Na624 decided July 23, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

No. 1. In the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party was aware that the non-party was unable to pay two promissory notes at the time of the president of ○○ University on January 15, 1970, and the non-party was issued and delivered to the non-party N&C Co., Ltd. on January 15, 1970, the fact-finding of the court below's above facts should not be correct. However, the non-party cannot issue promissory notes on behalf of the defendant private teaching institute in the issuance of the above promissorysory notes (refer to the legal brief of the defendant's attorney) because it was impossible to predict the situation that the above promissory notes were issued on behalf of the defendant private teaching institute for the purpose of the prohibition against the construction of teachers' teaching staff to be paid at the time of the issuance of the above promissory notes (refer to the legal brief of the defendant's attorney). Thus, the court below's explanation that it was not predicted and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of evidence without affecting the conclusion of the judgment at the above.

No. 2. According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below is identical to the theory that the plaintiff acknowledges that the plaintiff suffered damage from the amount of the bill of this case by receiving the bill of this case and paying the majority opinion equivalent to the above amount of the bill of this case. However, it is reasonable to deem that the person who acquired the bill of this case has paid the majority opinion and, in the absence of special circumstances, he paid the majority opinion equivalent to the face value, and unless there are special circumstances, the person who acquired the bill of this case's bill of this case's acquisition of the bill of this case's case's acquisition of the bill of this case's and the fact that the bill of this case's refusal to pay its face value had been made, and there is no error of law that the court below failed to conduct a deliberation or confirmed the fact without evidence in this case's acquisition of the bill of this case's bill of this case's or by evidence

No. 3. The non-party issued and delivered this case's promissory note to non-party 1 corporation. Thus, since the issue of the above promissory note was constituted by tort, damages caused by the above tort occurred when the non-party 3 refused payment of the above promissory note. Thus, if the plaintiff, who is a lawful holder of the above promissory note, presented it for payment, but refused payment, the damages caused by the above tort occurred to the plaintiff. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to tort since the court below decided that the tort of this case caused damages like the plaintiff's explanation. The appeal to the court below is without merit.

No. 4. In light of the records, the Promissory Notes (No. 1-2) of this case shall be reviewed, and even though the law does not have been issued as the representative of the defendant corporation, the general public can be seen as being issued by the operator of ○ University. Thus, the court below did not err in finding facts without any evidence which rejected the defendant's assertion of comparative negligence on the ground of the plaintiff's negligence. This opinion is without merit.

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.

The Korean Supreme Court Judge Han-won(Presiding Judge)