Whether a short-term finance company should separately investigate the credit standing, soundness, etc. of the issuer in selling and buying the unsecured corporate bills issued by a closed-term finance company eligible for issuance of commercial papers (negative)

In the absence of special circumstances, such as where a short-term finance company knows or was able to know at the time of the sale of unsecured corporate bills issued by an enterprise selected as an eligible enterprise in accordance with the management standards for the appropriate corporate bills issued by the Committee for the Steering Committee of the Office of Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, it is difficult to readily conclude that it is not responsible for the duty of confirmation under Article 12 of the Short-term Finance Business Act or due care as a good manager even without separately investigating the credit status and soundness of the issuer.

Article 12 of the Short-Term Finance Business Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff

Hansung Investment Finance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na4172 delivered on October 7, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff entrusted purchase of the bill to the non-party who is the counter employee of the defendant company at the time of the purchase of the bill in the original form because it did not believe some evidence corresponding thereto and there is no other evidence to recognize the points. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. As determined by the court below, the non-party Seocho General Construction Co., Ltd. was selected as a qualified company in accordance with the standards for the management of the qualified company for the issuance of commercial papers established by the Steering Committee of the Office of Strategy and Finance at the time of the sale of commercial papers. If it is difficult to deem that the defendant was aware or could have known that the above non-party company, the issuer, was a qualified company at the time of the sale of commercial papers, and there was a reason for termination or the reason for the issuance regulation, it shall not be deemed that the defendant was an eligible company as selected by the Steering Committee of the above non-party company without any separate investigation as to the credit condition and asset soundness, etc., and even if the non-party company purchased and sold the this non-party company's commercial bills, it shall not be deemed that the defendant company was not negligent in neglecting the duty of confirmation or due care as a good manager under Article 12 of the Short-Term Finance Business Act, and therefore,

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Ma-tae (Presiding Justice)