Whether the endorser of a promissory note bears the responsibility of guarantee for the drawer’s cause obligation

In principle, any person who has become an endorser in a promissory note issued by another person shall bear only the liability under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act arising from the act of endorsement: Provided, That only in cases where an endorsement has been made to the effect that he/she will guarantee also the civil obligation which is the cause of the issuance of the Promissory Notes,

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

Supreme Court Decision 64Da865 delivered on October 20, 1964, 73Da405 Delivered on September 25, 1973, and 81Meu979 Delivered on February 14, 1984

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 86Na3033 delivered on March 25, 1987

The case shall be remanded to the Seoul Civil District Court together with the Seoul Civil District Court by destroying the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party, the issuer of the Promissory Notes of this case, ordered the non-party to lend money to the non-party, who was an employee of the non-party, to whom the non-party, who was the issuer of the Promissory Notes of this case, and the non-party, was endorsed by the non-party, who was the mother of the non-party, in the process of negotiating the discount of this Promissory Notes, and the non-party's mother, but he knew that the non-party, in the process of negotiating the discount of this Promissory Notes, he did not have money, paid 4,00,000 won to the plaintiff and paid 4,000 won from the plaintiff to the non-party company in the form of discount of the Promissorysory Notes with 3% agreed on the discount of the bill, and therefore, according to the above facts, the court below held that the non-party company was liable for the joint and several debt of the non-party company as a joint and several surety, barring any special circumstances.

However, in principle, a person who has become an endorser in a promissory note issued by another person shall be liable only for the obligations under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. However, only in the case of endorsement with the intent of guaranteeing the obligee’s civil obligation, which is the cause of the issuance of the Promissory Notes, shall be liable for the obligee’s civil obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 64Da865, Oct. 20, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 73Da405, Sept. 25, 1973; Supreme Court Decision 81Meu979, Feb. 14, 1984). Only in the above facts recognized by the court below, the Defendant shall not interpret its intent as a joint and several liability to the obligation under the Civil Act, which is the cause of the issuance of the Promissory Notes, or may not confirm the fact of the establishment of a joint and several liability contract.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the appellant is liable for the joint and several surety obligation for the loan for consumption of the non-party company is erroneous in the application of the empirical rule, and this is a serious violation of law which is recognized as significantly contrary to justice and equity. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

Therefore, the part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)