The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the judgment of evidence and failing to exhaust all deliberation.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding evidence judgment and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] COSS department department, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee]

Hanyang Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 86Na1172 delivered on July 21, 1987

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

As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

As the cause of the claim in this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was liable to pay the amount borrowed to the Plaintiff as the endorser of the Promissory Notes in this case issued on October 17, 1984 by Japan Metal Co., Ltd. with the Defendant as the addressee and the Defendant exempted the drawing up of the protest and transferred it by endorsement to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, in lending the amount equivalent to the above amount of the Promissory Notes, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff as the endorser of the Promissory Notes and endorsed it to the purport of the security, and even if the Plaintiff was not the lawful representative of the Defendant, the said person used the name of the Defendant Company’s executive director at the time, so the Defendant was liable to return the borrowed amount to the Plaintiff as the guarantor for the above amount of the obligation of the Wsory Metal, in accordance with the legal principles of liability arising from the act

On October 17, 1984, the court below rejected the above assertion on the following grounds: (a) around October 17, 1984, the Plaintiff received the Promissory Notes from Nonparty 2, who was the representative director of the Han Metal Co., Ltd., and lent money equivalent to its face value; and (b) at that time, the name plate and seal affixed to the first endorsement column of the said Promissory Notes, which became “non-party 3 of the Hanyang Co., Ltd.,” and thus, indicated to the Plaintiff as if the Defendant endorsed and transferred the said Promissory Notes; (b) however, the Defendant guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation of Han Metal Co., Ltd., or was actually duly endorsed, or Nonparty 1, who is the executive director of the Defendant Co., Ltd., guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff by means of endorsement under the Defendant’s name, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of No. 1-2 (in the face of the Promissory Notes) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

As such, the court below should consider whether it can be said that there is no evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the Defendant’s own endorsement of the Promissory Notes. First, according to the testimony of the first instance court and the witness of the court below, the non-party 2 asked the non-party 1 to make an endorsement by telephone, which was made by the Defendant’s executive director, and then accepted the endorsement on the Promissory Notes. Further, around December 1984, the non-party 1 went to the non-party 2 with the president of the court below, the non-party 2, who was the wife of the non-party 2, and the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, would not have made a statement that the non-party 2 would have been in the non-party 4, the non-party 2, who was the first instance court’s joint representative director of the non-party 5, and the non-party 2, who was in the non-party 4, the non-party 3, who borrowed 1, made an endorsement.

In full view of the above testimony, Nonparty 2 continued to borrow funds from Nonparty 7 and offered promissory notes as collateral at least from April 1, 1984 to March 1985. The fact that Nonparty 1 visited Nonparty 2’s company and left for the settlement of the promissory notes is that the transaction of the promissory notes was continued between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1, and that the Defendant’s financial situation is related to the settlement of the bills by Nonparty 2. Thus, even if how the promissory notes were issued in detail and the process cannot be known, the authenticity is recognized as the degree of proof of the above, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

The court below's sole evidence that the authenticity of the endorsement of the above bill cannot be recognized is that the judgment of evidence has been reversed and that the court below failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and it cannot be seen as falling under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)