beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. The separation between the cause relations and the relationship of the bill is aimed at protecting the bona fide acquisitor and strengthening the circulation of the bill. Thus, in a case where the bill remains in the number of the other party directly involved in the act of the bill, the obligor of the bill may refuse to exercise his rights on the bill by asserting and proving the deficiency or defects in the cause relations;
(2) On July 2, 2004, the court below rejected the defendant's defense based on the above underlying relationship on the ground that the defendant issued the promissory note of this case to the plaintiff, because the defendant was found to have issued and delivered the Promissory Notes of KRW 500 million at face value to the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 500 million at face value to the plaintiff, and there is no or no causal relation with the Promissory Notes of this case. As to the defendant's assertion that the Promissory Notes of this case was extinguished, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant issued the Promissory Notes of this case to prepare for the defendant's arbitrary disposal of the land C, D, and their above ground buildings (hereinafter "RR real estate of this case") at both weeks at face value to both weeks, and ② in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the plaintiff lent KRW 500 million to G through the defendant, but the plaintiff could not recover the loan.
3. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below as it is.
The judgment below
The reasoning and the evidence admitted by the lower court reveal the following facts and circumstances.
(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s relationship, etc. (1) as the Defendant’s wife, had engaged in unauthorized credit business and real estate auction business at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building, and the Plaintiff’s Chokman.