Whether a bill of exchange is valid

In order for the plaintiff who is the issuer of a promissory note to manage the situation following the embezzlement of public funds by a third party, some of the face value of the promissory note is liable for payment, and some of the face value of the promissory note occurs in the form of any subparagraph, there is no relationship with a face value

Article 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes

Plaintiff

Granted Group

Daejeon District Court of Daejeon District Court (64Ga299, 361, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Revocation of the part concerning principal action in the original judgment

It is confirmed that the contract for fidelity guarantee to Nonparty 1 entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void.

Of the amount of promissory notes worth KRW 230,000 issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on January 31, 1964, the existence of the obligation of KRW 200,000 is confirmed.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The parts concerning the counterclaim in the original judgment shall be altered as follows:

The counterclaim defendant shall pay to the counterclaim 30,000 won with an annual amount of 6% from February 13, 1964 to the full payment system.

The remaining claims of the Lessee are dismissed.

The litigation costs relating to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be divided into three parts through the first and second trials, and such two parts shall be borne by the defendant, while the leave land shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) confirms that the contract for the guarantee of good faith with the non-party 1 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the defendant) on August 20, 1963 is null and void.

It is confirmed that there is no obligation of promissory notes worth KRW 230,000 issued by the Plaintiff in the future of the Defendant on April 31, 1964.

The defendant requested the plaintiff to declare provisional execution only with respect to the delivery of the above promissory note and the delivery of the promissory note, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the counterclaim.

The counterclaim costs are assessed against the Counterclaim Plaintiff, and the Defendant is dismissed with respect to the principal lawsuit.

The court costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, and as a counterclaim, the plaintiff shall pay 230,000 won to the defendant and 6% interest per annum from February 13, 1964 to the full payment.

Counterclaim costs were assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

It is confirmed that a contract for fidelity guarantee to Nonparty 1 entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 20, 1963 is null and void.

It is confirmed that there is no obligation of promissory notes worth KRW 230,000 issued by the plaintiff in the future of the defendant on January 31, 1964.

The defendant shall deliver the above promissory note to the plaintiff.

The counterclaim claim shall be dismissed.

A declaration of provisional execution is sought only for the judgment that costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances and for the portion on which a promissory note is requested;

The defendant's attorney is dismissed.

The appeal cost is assessed against the plaintiff.

First of all, we judge the plaintiff's main claim.

On August 20, 1963, the non-party 1, who was the head of the Eup finance division of the defendant's letter of fidelity guarantee, tried to request the plaintiff to present his letter of fidelity guarantee to the non-party 1 on August 20, 1963, and the plaintiff's letter of fidelity guarantee submitted to the defendant by the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 witness's testimony at the court below and the court below on August 20, 1963, comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the oral argument, the non-party 1, who was the head of the Eup finance division of the defendant-Eup issued the above financial division, to renew the letter of fidelity guarantee upon the non-party 1's request, and the non-party 2, who was the plaintiff who was a temporary employee in the above financial division, did not request the plaintiff to present his fidelity guarantee to the non-party 1, but did not have a separate relation between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, and did not have any other evidence of the plaintiff's signature (the plaintiff 1).

According to the above recognition, the plaintiff's identity guarantee against the defendant does not exist and the plaintiff's identity guarantee against the non-party 1 submitted to the defendant is made against the plaintiff's will. Thus, it is clear that the contract for the fidelity guarantee under the above written fidelity guarantee cannot be effective.

However, the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1 was ratified by the non-party 2's unauthorized act using the plaintiff's seal and affixed it to the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's testimony at the original trial and the non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

On January 31, 1964, the plaintiff issued a promissory note amounting to 230,00 won at the face value to the defendant. According to the above facts, the plaintiff had an intention to pay 30,000 won out of the above promissory note, but it is difficult to accept the promissory note under the name of the non-party 1 who is the principal of the case in the defendant Gun as to 200,000 won, since it is difficult for the plaintiff to pay 20,000 won out of the above promissory note, it is hard to accept the promissory note under the name of the non-party 1 who is the principal of the case in the defendant Gun: Provided, That with respect to the amount, it can be seen that the fact that the promissory note was issued in combination with the plaintiff's wife and the situation, and there is no reason to believe that the above promissory note was issued in a criminal case for the non-party 1 to the above 200,000 won, and there is no reason to conclude that there is no agreement among the plaintiff 300,000 won.

Therefore, it can be said that there is no obligation of KRW 200,000 among the above obligations of promissory notes, but the remaining obligation of KRW 30,000 exists. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is seeking to deliver a promissory note to the Defendant on the premise that there is no obligation of the said promissory note, but the above obligation of the Plaintiff is partly existing. As seen above, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable to the extent that it seeks confirmation of invalidity of the contract for fidelity guarantee and confirmation of existence of obligation of KRW 200,000 among the obligations of promissory notes issued by the plaintiff, and thus, the remainder of the claims is without merit. Therefore, it shall be dismissed.

Next, the defendant's counterclaim is examined.

However, according to the plaintiff's petition of appeal, as to the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff had already been determined by failing to file an appeal within the statutory period, the original judgment on the counterclaim of this case is clear that there is no statement that the plaintiff sought to dismiss the counterclaim in the appellate brief, but in light of the plaintiff's statement on the degree of objection and the statement on whether to file an appeal, the plaintiff has filed an appeal against the whole original judgment. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that there was no statement on the purport of appeal that the plaintiff seeks to dismiss the counterclaim in the appellate brief, but there is no statement on the purport that the plaintiff has filed an appeal against the whole of the original judgment. Accordingly, in the case where the plaintiff stated by correcting the defects

According to the statement of No. 1, 1964 and the testimony of Non-Party 4, the fact that the Plaintiff issued a promissory note of KRW 230,000 at a face value to the Defendant on January 31, 1964, and that the Defendant was the holder of the said note, the due date for the payment of the said promissory note is the place of payment and the place of payment, and the place of payment, and the defendant, who is the holder of the said note, presented the note to the Plaintiff at the due date for payment, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. While the Defendant is claiming for the payment of the total face value of the said note to the Plaintiff, there is no debt between the original Defendant with respect to KRW 20,000,000, and only the remaining amount of KRW 30,000,000, out of its face value, there is no other dispute between the parties.

However, even if there is a promissory note obligation against the defendant, the plaintiff 5,880 won has already been paid. Thus, in full view of the witness's testimony as stated in No. 2-1, No. 2-2, and the witness's testimony that the existence of the original and the authenticity may be recognized by Non-Party 5's non-party 5's testimony, the non-party 1 would be liable for the payment of KRW 55,880 to the defendant with the amount of KRW 200,000, which he sold and disposed of his house. However, there is no evidence to support the above fact that the payment of the amount was made as a promissory note of KRW 30,00,00 of the plaintiff's above, and there is no evidence to support this fact. Thus, the plaintiff's above claim for payment shall be rejected.

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim is reasonable to the extent of seeking the payment of interest in arrears at the rate of 6% per annum, which is the interest rate of commercial law, from February 13, 1964 to the date following the date when the payment was presented to the plaintiff, which is 30,000 won as above and the day following the date when the payment was presented to the plaintiff. Thus, it is reasonable to accept the claim and the remaining part of the claim is actual.

If so, it is unreasonable that the original judgment was partially different from the original judgment, and there is a ground for part of Plaintiff’s resistance, so the part on the principal lawsuit in the original judgment shall be revoked and the part on the counterclaim shall be altered, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 92, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Saman-man (Presiding Judge) Kim Lee Hong-soo