logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1962. 7. 19. 선고 62다181 판결
[약속어음금][집10(3)민,173]
Main Issues

(2) The validity of the payment of obligations of the Promissory Notes, unless exchanged with the Promissory Notes.

Summary of Judgment

The attachment or provisional attachment of promissory note bonds has no legal effect, even if it was done by the method of attachment or provisional attachment of general debts, unless the delivery of the bonds has acquired the possession of the securities.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 20 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 566 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Gyeong-hee

Defendant-Appellee

Ise and lele andle

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu District Court Decision 61Hun-Gong811 delivered on April 6, 1962, Daegu High Court Decision 201

Text

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Reasons

The court below acknowledged that, by taking account of the evidence set out in the judgment below, the promissory note was endorsed and transferred to the non-party 1, to the non-party 2, after the maturity of the original judgment, and rejected the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the above promissory note was still payable for the transfer of the non-party 1, and that the above promissory note was already issued with an order of seizure and all of the bonds of the non-party 1, and that the above promissory note was provisionally seized by the non-party 1's transfer of the bonds of the non-party 1, and that the above bonds of the non-party 1 were repaid to the non-party 1, by the non-party 1's agreement with the non-party 3, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were not subject to seizure or provisional seizure on the non-party 1's bonds of the non-party 1, and therefore, it is clear that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above, in light of the legal nature of the non-party 165 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As above, in accordance with the explanation, we decide to reverse the original judgment, omitted the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal, and decide as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in the original judgment in order to re-examine the original judgment.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags

arrow
본문참조조문
기타문서