[1] Requirements to recognize that an endorser, who has endorsed on a promissory note to the effect of guarantee, bears the responsibility of guarantee for the underlying obligation in addition to the duty of recourse under the Promissory Notes

[2] The case holding that a guarantee agreement cannot be deemed to have been concluded between the endorser and creditor of a bill of exchange

[1] According to a contract of lending money, even if an endorser endorsements on a promissory note issued by the debtor to the purpose of guarantee in order to secure the payment of the debt, such fact alone cannot be deemed as a contract of guarantee for the debt which is a debt which is a cause of debt. In this case, even if the endorser knew in detail the contents of the loan agreement which is the cause of the issuance of the promissory note, and directly endorsed in response to the demand of the lender in the presence of the lender, such fact can only be deemed as sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the endorser had an intent to guarantee the debt in the cause of the transaction, and it cannot be deemed as the establishment of a contract of guarantee for the debt in the cause transaction, on the ground that there exists such fact, and even if the endorser demands the endorser to guarantee the debt which is a cause of the issuance of the promissory note, it can be deemed that the endorser complies with the endorsement by recognizing that the endorser had an intent to guarantee even the debt which is a cause of the issuance of the promissory note, that is, the endorser has fulfilled his obligation to the lender, not in the form of the obligation.

[2] The case holding that although an endorser, who has endorsed a promissory note as collateral, was well aware of the existence of the existence of the terms of a loan agreement for consumption between the obligee and the obligor, and in particular there was no objection to the increase in the sum of the principal and interest of the loan obligation at the time of two separate bills thereafter, it cannot be deemed that the endorser had an intent to guarantee the obligation under the cause relationship, it does not request the obligee to lend money to the obligee, but rather, the endorser did not request that the endorser be liable for the loan, and the endorser did not request that the endorser be given the same attitude or speech and behavior for the obligation under the cause relationship. Rather, the endorser did not refuse it after receiving a request for an endorsement which has been set off from the obligee and the obligor, and the obligee was also unable to refuse it, and the obligee also requested the obligor to sign the loan on two occasions, and the obligee did not request the endorser to sign each letter of endorsement on the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan obligation, and it is difficult to view the obligee's intent to demand the issuance of the loan and the obligee's obligation.

[1] Articles 15(1) and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 428(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 15(1) and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 428(1) of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da17457 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 557) Supreme Court Decision 94Da5397 delivered on August 26, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2524) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da23459 delivered on November 23, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 177) 93Da5922 delivered on December 22, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 426)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Gyeongnam Promotion Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 96Na12047 delivered on July 18, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

원심은, 소외 주식회사 성원(이하 성원이라 한다)의 대표이사 소외 1은 새로 원고의 영남지역 본부장으로 임명되어 영남지방에서의 건설공사 수주를 책임지게 된 소외 2에게 아파트 부지의 매입대금으로 금 1,000,000,000원을 대여해 주면 성원이 계획하고 있는 부산 사하구 당리동에서의 아파트 신축공사 시공권과 분양대행권을 원고에게 주겠다고 제의한 사실, 소외 2는 성원 측의 요구대로 금 1,000,000,000원을 대여하고 위 공사를 수주하고자 하였으나, 그러기 위하여는 원고의 방침에 따라 인적 담보를 확보하여야만 하였던 사실, 이에 소외 2와 소외 1은 같은 지역의 건설업계 종사자로서 서로 친하게 지내던 피고의 대표이사 소외 3 및 전무이사 소외 4를 찾아가 장차 원고가 성원에게 금 1,000,000,000원을 대여하고 성원이 그에 대한 담보로 약속어음을 발행할 때 그 어음에 배서하여 줄 것을 여러 차례 간청하는 한편, 아직 그 배서에 대한 피고측의 승낙을 확보하지 못한 상태에서 같은 해 7. 2. 미리 작성일자를 백지로 한 공사 도급 및 분양 대행에 관한 약정서를 작성하게 되었는데, 그 약정서 제2조 제1항에 "주식회사 성원은 대여금 담보 조로 시중은행도 약속어음을 발행하되 보증인으로 피고 대표이사 소외 3의 배서를 하고 성원의 비용으로 공증하여 원고에게 교부한다."는 조항을 두었던 사실, 피고 대표이사 소외 3은 원고와 성원 사이에 위와 같은 약정서가 작성된 사실을 알지 못한 채 소외 1과 소외 2의 배서 요청에 선뜻 응하지 않다가 마침내 같은 달 6. "지급기일까지 어음을 결제하지 못하였을 때에는 피고의 배서에 대한 책임과 보증을 소외 2가 책임지고 해결할 것을 보증 각서한다."는 내용의 소외 2 명의의 각서를 직접 작성하여 그 위에 소외 2의 날인을 받고서야 그 각서를 담보로 삼아 약속어음에 배서하는 데 승낙하고, 같은 날 성원이 지급기일을 같은 해 12. 31.로 하여 발행한 액면 금 1,000,000,000원의 약속어음에 제1배서인으로 배서를 하였고, 이에 원고와 성원도 미리 작성하여 둔 위 약정서의 날짜를 위 7. 6.로 기재하여 넣었으며, 원고는 그 다음날 금 1,000,000,000원을 성원에 이율 월 1할 3푼, 지연손해금 월 1할 7푼, 변제기 1994. 12. 31., 최장 연장기한 1995. 3. 31.로 정하여 대여한 사실, 그런데 성원은 위 어음의 지급기일까지 위 대여금을 변제하기 어렵게 되자, 같은 해 12. 27. 액면 금액을 그 동안의 대여금 이자를 포함한 금 1,104,958,904원으로, 만기를 1995. 3. 31.로 한 약속어음으로 어음을 개서하였는바, 성원의 감사이자 위 아파트 분양사업에 관하여 실질적으로 성원의 동업자적인 지위에 있던 소외 5가 제1배서란에, 피고의 대표이사 소외 3이 제2배서란에 각 보증의 취지로 배서하였고, 소외 3은 이번에도 소외 2로부터 종전과 같은 내용의 각서를 작성받은 후에야 배서를 하였던 사실, 그런데 성원은 위 연장된 만기에도 어음금을 지급하지 못하게 되자 다시 액면 금액을 그 동안의 대여금 이자를 포함한 금 1,147,342,465원, 만기를 같은 해 6. 30.로 한 약속어음으로 어음을 개서하였는데, 이 때도 소외 5가 제1배서란에, 피고가 제2배서란에 각 배서하였으나 이번에는 소외 2로부터 종전과 같은 각서를 작성받지 아니하고 배서한 사실, 위와 같이 2차례 어음 개서를 할 때마다 성원은 원고의 요구로 원고에게 원리금 상환에 대한 각서를 제출하였는데, 제1차 어음 개서시에는 원고의 요구로 소외 5만이 그 각서에 지불보증인으로 날인하였고, 2차 어음 개서시에는 원고의 요구가 없어서 피고는 물론 소외 5도 그 각서에 날인하지 아니한 사실, 그 후 성원은 1995. 5. 2.자로 부도가 났고 결국 위 아파트 분양사업은 착수되지도 못하고 말았으며, 원고는 위 약속어음에 대한 적법한 지급제시를 하지 못하여 배서인들에 대한 소구권을 상실한 사실 등을 인정한 후, 위 약속어음 발행의 원인이 된 대여금채무에 대하여 피고에게 보증인으로서의 책임이 있다는 원고의 주장을 원심 판시와 같은 이유로 배척하였다.

In the conclusion of a lending contract, even if an endorser has knowingly endorsed to a promissory note issued by the obligor to the effect of guarantee in order to secure the payment of the lending obligation, such fact alone cannot be deemed as a guarantee contract for the lending obligation which is the underlying obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da17457, Dec. 22, 1992; 93Da23459, Nov. 23, 1993). In this case, since the lender directly negotiated with and demanded endorsement with the endorser, the lender became aware of the contents of the lending contract which is the cause of issuance of the promissory note, and it was in response to the demand of the lender in the presence of the lender, such fact may only be deemed as sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the endorser had the intent to guarantee the payment of the lending obligation in relation to the underlying relationship, and it may not be deemed as establishing a guarantee contract for the lending obligation under an endorsement relationship, which is, the lender may be deemed as having the intent to demand the endorser to provide the lending's credit obligation in the form of endorsement.

According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant's representative director, non-party 3 was well aware of the contents of a loan agreement that will be used in the promissory note in this case from the plaintiff's representative director and the representative director of the Sungwon who is the debtor, on the basis of the defendant's future endorsement, and in particular, there was no objection to the increase in the sum of the principal and interest of the loan obligation at two or more bills, which can be viewed as a material fact that the endorser had an intention to guarantee the obligation in the cause relationship. However, the defendant's representative director did not appear to have the same attitude as that of the obligation in the cause relationship, or requested the plaintiff to lend money while making a speech and behavior. Rather, the plaintiff did not refuse it, and did not refuse it after being requested by the plaintiff's representative director and the representative director of the Sungwon, the debtor representative director at the time of opening an endorsement and the non-party 15 who is the debtor at the time of opening an endorsement, and it is difficult to view the plaintiff's intent to request the payment of the principal and interest on each bill.

The Plaintiff’s other points in the grounds of appeal are as follows: (a) Nonparty 3, at the time of the opening of the first bill, attempted to affix a seal in the column of endorsement with personal seal impression; (b) Nonparty 3 received strong resistance from the Plaintiff’s side; (c) left the representative director’s seal impression and the certificate of seal impression to Kimhae Airport in Seoul; and (d) the Plaintiff’s employees received them and affixed a seal in the column of endorsement; (c) however, the Plaintiff’s employees had the Plaintiff implement the construction in the name of the Defendant, executed in the name of the Defendant on the ground that there is concern that the Defendant would be liable to the Plaintiff as the instant case; (d) the fact that the Defendant had the Defendant carried out the construction in the name of the Seoul S square-dong in the name of the Defendant, which is executed by the Sungwon-dong in the form of the Defendant, cannot be a ground that may affect the conclusion of the judgment below denying the establishment of the guarantee contract for the obligation to cause

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 Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)