(a) Whether there is no damage, in case where a forged endorsement is discounted and acquired in good faith, but the bill does not meet the requirements for recourse against the endorser;

(b)In the case of paragraph (a), whether the amount of damage of the discounted person is the face value of the bill; (c) whether the acquisition of the bill by paying its face value shall be deemed to be in violation of the nature of the discount and trade practices;

(a) Where a person who has received a request for discount of a bill pays a discounted amount, and acquires it, but the transfer and endorsement thereon has been forged, barring any special circumstance, he/she shall be deemed to have suffered losses from the amount equivalent to the discounted amount paid, which is not the face value of the bill, immediately after reliance on the forged endorsement, and shall not be deemed to have incurred any loss from the person who has paid the discounted amount in return for the acquisition of the bill, on the ground that he/she fails to meet the requirements for exercise of the right of recourse against the endorsers;

B. In the event that a discount or acquisition of a bill of exchange, promissory note, etc. is based on the belief that the endorsement was genuine, tort liability has already been established at the time of acquisition of a forged bill, etc. by paying the amount that is believed to be genuine, and the amount of damages is not the face value of the bill of exchange, etc., but the amount that is paid to acquire the bill.

C. Ordinary discount means a transaction in which a holder of a bill whose maturity is not yet due transfers the bill to a financial business operator, such as a bank, and the bank, etc. grants a discount the amount obtained by deducting interest and other expenses from the amount of the bill (in the case of a check with sight payment, the check payment cannot be established within a strict sense because there is no maturity even in the case of a check with sight payment, but a check can be done within the meaning of deducting interest up to the specified period because payment was not made by the specified date), and acquiring the bill by paying the full face value with the full face value goes against the nature of the bill discount or the transaction practices, barring special circumstances.

(a)Article 763, Article 393(a) of the Civil Code; Articles 77 and 44(a) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 53(c) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 93Da6164,6171 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2597) (Gong1993Ha, 2597) 93Da21514 delivered on November 8, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3236). (b) Supreme Court Decision 91Da43848 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong192, 2245)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na11448 decided May 1, 200

Jin Food Co., Ltd., Counsel Kim Yong-hwan

Seoul Central District Court Decision 93Na21940 delivered on March 25, 1994

The judgment of the court below on the conjunctive claim shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The appeal against the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The court below, based on macro evidence, issued four copies of the check number per unit (45,000,000 won in total) and two promissory notes (40,000,000 won in total) and the non-party 1, who is a financial director of the defendant company, demanded endorsement under the name of the defendant company in order to facilitate the discount of the above check number and the bill (hereinafter the check, etc.), and the non-party 2 forged a blank endorsement under the name of the defendant company without any authority. After this, the non-party 1 presented the above check, etc. to the plaintiff and requested the loan, and the non-party 1 rejected the plaintiff's demand for the payment of the check amount of 85,00,000,000 won in total (45,000,000 won in total, and 40,000,000 won in total, in total), and it was difficult to view that the plaintiff was liable to refuse the payment of the check, etc. after the plaintiff's refusal of the check.

In accordance with the records, the above fact finding and judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the assertion of arguments.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal as to the main claim of this case is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

Furthermore, the court below held as follows: (a) as to the part of a promissory note discount against the defendant among the conjunctive claims claiming compensation for damages equivalent to discount on the ground of the forgery of endorsement by Nonparty 2, where the endorsement of the promissory note was forged by an employee of the title holder of the endorsement, and then the holder of the promissory note imposes an employer liability on the title holder of the endorsement; (b) therefore, the holder of the promissory note may claim damages only to the extent that it can be held liable for damages; and (c) therefore, if the requirements for the exercise of the right of recourse are not satisfied, even though there was no tort committed by the forgery of the forgery of endorsement, the right of recourse cannot be exercised; (d) in such a case, the holder of the promissorysory note shall be deemed to be damages incurred by acquiring the title holder’s belief that the endorsement of the said promissory note is true on the ground that it cannot be claimed for the payment of the discount amount on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be viewed to have paid the discount amount on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for the obligee’s duty and payment of discount.

Therefore, in case where a person who received a request for discount of a bill of exchange at discount, acquires a bill, but the transfer and endorsement of the bill is forged, barring any special circumstance, he shall be deemed to have suffered losses from the amount equivalent to the discounted amount paid, not to the face value of the bill, immediately after reliance on the forged endorsement, barring any special circumstance. It shall not be deemed that there is no damage to the person who believed that the forged endorsement is true and paid the discounted amount in return for the acquisition of the bill, on the ground that he fails to meet the requirements for the exercise of the right of recourse against an endorser (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da6164, 6171, Aug. 24, 1993; 93Da21514, Nov. 8, 1994).

In this case, according to the facts admitted by the court below, the plaintiff demanded the defendant's endorsement upon receiving a discount of the check from the original non-party 1. Thus, the plaintiff is ultimately attributable to the defendant's belief that the defendant's endorsement was true, and tort liability has already been established at the time when the plaintiff paid the forged endorsement with the trust of realizing it, and in this case, the amount of damages is not the face value of the bill but the amount paid to acquire the bill is the opinion of party members established (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da43848 delivered on June 23, 1992).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the claim for damages on the ground that the right of recourse was not secured, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to damages in the tort, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to special circumstances that did not cause damages, and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument that points out

2. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Concerning the First and Second Points

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below that there is no evidence that the act of forging the endorsement by Nonparty 2 is related to his duties and that there is no gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff when he did not know the forgery of the above endorsement, is justified. There is no violation of the rules of evidence as to the duty relationship or the reasons for exemption in the employer's liability such as the theory of the lawsuit, nor there

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Concerning No. 4

The issue is that the amount actually paid by the Plaintiff at the time of acquiring the check of this case is not the face value of the check, but the advance interest is deducted from the face value of the check, and there is an error in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

The court below found that the plaintiff acquired the check of this case from the non-party 1 at the time of the discount that the plaintiff paid to the non-party 1 at the time of the discount as 45,000,00 won which is the face value of the check. However, since the holder of the bill whose maturity is not yet due transfers the bill to the financial business operator, etc., and the bank, etc. grants a discount to the requester with the amount which deducts interest and other expenses from the face value of the bill (in the case of the check whose maturity is payable at sight, the check cannot be established within a strict sense because there is no maturity, but the check can be done within a strict sense that the plaintiff did not present the bill before a specific date and deducts interest until that date) it goes against the nature of the payer to the bill of this case or transaction practices, barring any special circumstances, it is difficult to introduce the original adjudication at the time that the non-party 1 acquired the bill of this case from the non-party 1 in the name of the defendant for the purpose of financing the face value of the bill.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 85,00,000 upon receiving the instant check, etc. from Nonparty 1. Accordingly, according to its argument, the cause of delivery of the check, etc. between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 is a loan for consumption, and therefore, the receipt of the instant check, etc. is not a discount of the check, etc., but a collateral is provided, such as a bill loan.

However, the evidence of the court below revealed that the plaintiff paid the face value of the check, etc. at the time of acquiring the check, etc. of this case is the only testimony of Kim Jong-chul of the court below. It is hard to accept the plaintiff's assertion in this case in that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff, in this case, has relied entirely on the credit of the non-party 1 with respect to the performance of the interest portion that the plaintiff requested a bill of exchange equivalent to the principal, etc. of the defendant's company's credit, and it is difficult to accept in this case, because it is difficult to introduce the contents of the testimony and let the plaintiff know about the loan of money between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, but the amount actually paid over several times, and there is a statement that the interest would have been paid at the due date, but it is doubtful that the interest would have been paid at the expiration of the interest rate.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized that the plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to the face value of the check, etc. at discount when acquiring the check, etc. of this case, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the reasoning by recognizing the fact contrary to the nature of the discount of the bill or the transaction practices, and there was no special circumstance that the plaintiff should pay the full amount of the face value to the non-party 1, unlike the nature of the discount of the bill discount or the transaction practices. The court below's approval of the discounted amount of the check, etc. of this case merely based on macro evidence insufficient to recognize the actual amount of the check in this case, which

There is reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal as to offsetting the Defendant’s negligence, the part of the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed for the Defendant as to the part on the check for the Plaintiff, and thus, it is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal on the part on the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. The costs of appeal on the part are assessed against the Plaintiff

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)