The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The legal nature of a cover note constitutes a promissory note under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da13167, Jun. 26, 2014). Therefore, it is deemed that a bank’s sales of a cover note in the manner of issuing a cover note to the person entrusting the issuance of the promissory note have the nature of selling the

Therefore, even if an account opened by a bank to separately keep and manage the funds received from the issuer in return for the issuance and sale of the cover note in preparation for the payment of the future cover note, barring any special circumstance, the issuer can only seek payment of the cover note issued in return for the said funds from the bank, barring any special circumstance.

The court below determined that the Defendant’s issuance of the cover bill of this case to A should be deemed as sale of the bill, and that the account of this case is merely opened in the form for the payment management of the cover bill of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the deposit contract regarding the account was concluded or the deposit claim was actually located. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim seeking partial payment of the amount of the collection bond of this case under the collection order of this case on the premise that the deposit claim regarding the account of this case exists actually.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal nature of the account in which the money paid in return was deposited, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, it is therefore.