(a) Validity of endorsement of promissory notes after the expiration of the period for protest drawn up; and

(b) Loss of creditor's security and exemption of legal subrogation;

(c)the period of prescription of the holder's right of recourse against the endorser, stating "exemption from the obligation to prepare a protest of non-performance" in the column of endorsement of promissory notes,

If Gap issued or endorsed a promissory note in order to secure the repayment of the obligation to Eul, then it constitutes a party in conflict with this section.

Article 485 of the Civil Act, Article 70 (2) of the Criminal Act

Profitization

Defendant 1 Company and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 60Do334 delivered on March 30, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 60Do334 delivered on March 30, 1961

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are as shown in the annexed appellate brief.

In light of the evidence cited by the lower court, the Defendants’ claim for the issuance of the instant promissory note to the Nonparty cannot be seen as being inconsistent with the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the non-party’s non-party’s right to demand reimbursement of KRW 1,000,000, and thus, the lower court’s conclusion that the Defendants’ claim for reimbursement of KRW 1,000,000 cannot be established on the non-party’s non-party-party’s share of KRW 5,00,000, based on the non-party-party’s reasoning that the Defendants’ claim for reimbursement of KRW 1,000,000,000 had been made on July 31, 1957, and the non-party-party’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 5,00,00,000,000 for the non-party-party-party-party’s share of this case cannot be seen as having been rejected on the ground that the Defendants’ claim for reimbursement of KRW 5,000,0,00.

Supreme Court Judge Choi Mamo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)