[1] The case holding that when a merchant bank sells at discount corporate bills, the merchant bank shall be deemed to have guaranteed the payment of bills under the civil law

[2] In a case where a merchant bank, which purchased a new corporate bill from the issuing company, sold it to ordinary investors, sold it, and thereby collected it in a bill management account by being entrusted with the custody of the bill and collection at maturity, and on a bill management account, whether the above obligation under the bill and the above obligation are extinguished (affirmative)

[3] In a case where the old bill is recovered and a new bill is issued and delivered in accordance with a bill renewal contract to merely postpone the maturity of a debt on a bill, whether a security or civil guarantee for a debt on the old bill exists for a new bill (affirmative with qualification)

[4] Judicial effect of a guarantee act committed in violation of the provisions on the restriction on guarantee act by a merchant bank under Article 11(1) of the Merchant Banks Business Management Guidelines established and enforced pursuant to Article 21 of the Merchant Banks Act (=effective)

[1] The case holding that when a merchant bank sells commercial papers at discount, if the merchant bank puts its name and affixes its seal on the column of endorsement/guarantee on the freely accepted sales account statement at the time of sale and enters the bill into the "CP indicating free company bills on the passbook for safekeeping of bills, the payment of the bill by the issuer shall be deemed to have

[2] If a merchant bank, which purchased a new corporate bill from an issuing company, sells it to ordinary investors, and then keeps and manages the bill in the bill management account (CMA) of the merchant bank after being entrusted with the custody of the bill and its maturity, the obligation under the bill is extinguished, and a civil guarantee liability under the civil law is also extinguished as to the obligation under the bill. It does not change on the ground that ordinary investors purchased another new corporate bill with its collection amount and did not deposit cash in the bill management account or did not actually withdraw cash from the bill management account.

[3] Where an old bill is recovered and a new bill is issued and delivered in accordance with a draft agreement between the parties concerned to postpone the maturity of an obligation on a bill, the obligation on the old bill shall be extinguished. However, in cases where an obligation on the old bill and an obligation on the new bill are substantially identical, unless there are special circumstances, a security or civil guarantee on an obligation on the old bill shall continue to exist as they continue to exist.

[4] Article 11 (1) of the Merchant Banks Business Management Guidelines established and enforced pursuant to Article 21 of the Merchant Banks Act limits the merchant banks' guarantee acts. However, the purport of this provision is that the merchant bank's business operations, which is a profit-making corporation, are subject to the autonomy of the company, but it is intended to promote the sound management of the merchant bank by restricting the merchant bank's business operations in certain cases due to the public nature of the financial business. Therefore, even if the guarantee was performed in violation of this provision, the validity of the law is not affected, and it does not change because the other party to the guarantee was aware

[1] Article 428 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 428 and 430 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 428 and 500 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 21 of the Merchant Banks Act, Article 11 (1) of the Merchant Banks Business Management Guidelines

[4] Supreme Court Decision 98Da31493 delivered on November 10, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 1) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da56116 delivered on December 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 488)

Kant Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Man & Yang, Attorneys Noh Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

(A) The bankruptcy trustee of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the bankrupt, who is the bankruptcy trustee of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the bankrupt, the bankruptcy trustee of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the bankrupt.

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na2602 delivered on August 23, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to whether civil guarantee liability is recognized

원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 그 채용 증거에 의하여, 원고는 1997. 6. 10.경 파산자 공영토건 주식회사(1982. 8. 18. 서울민사지방법원으로부터 회사정리절차 개시결정을 받았다가 1998. 11. 17. 최종부도가 나서 1999. 6. 30. 서울지방법원으로부터 파산선고를 받았다. 이하 '공영토건'이라 한다)와 사이에 공영토건의 모기업인 동아건설산업 주식회사의 연대보증 아래 공영토건에게 대여한 기왕의 신용대출금 166억 원의 채권 중 만기가 도래한 80억 원에 대하여 기업어음의 할인이 가능한 종합금융회사를 통하여 공영토건 발행의 기업어음(CP)을 재차 할인 매입하는 방법으로 공영토건이 조달한 할인 자금으로 상환받기로 하고, 공영토건이 위 동아건설산업 주식회사의 연대보증 아래 어음거래약정을 체결하고 있던 한화종합금융 주식회사(1998. 9. 18. 서울지방법원으로부터 파산선고를 받았고 피고가 그 파산관재인이다. 이하 편의상 파산선고 전후를 불문하고 '파산회사'라고만 한다)에게 공영토건 발행의 액면 80억 원의 기업어음을 어음할인 방식으로 매도하면 원고가 이를 파산회사로부터 매수하기로 약정한 사실, 이에 따라 공영토건은 1997. 6. 13. 파산회사로부터 공영토건 발행의 액면 80억 원, 지급기일 1997. 9. 11.인 약속어음 1매(은행 등의 지급보증을 받은 바 없음. 이하 '이 사건 제1 어음'이라 한다)를 할인율 연 11.5%를 적용하여 할인받았고, 파산회사는 같은 날 원고에게 위 어음을 할인율 연 11%를 적용하여 할인한 금액으로 매도하였는데, 이 때 이 사건 제1 어음은 파산회사가 보관하면서 어음관리계좌(CMA)로 이를 관리하고 원고에게는 이 사건 제1 어음이 보관되었음을 기입한 어음보관통장을 교부함과 동시에 이 사건 제1 어음의 내역 및 할인 이자를 공제한 실 매도금액이 기재된 자유화매출계산서(갑 5호증의 1)의 배서/보증란에 파산회사의 기명·날인을 하여 교부하였으며, 한편 같은 날 공영토건은 위와 같이 이 사건 제1 어음을 할인하여 받은 금액으로써 원고에 대한 위 80억 원의 신용대출금을 상환한 사실, 원고는 1997. 9. 11. 공영토건 및 파산회사와의 협의에 따라 지급기일이 도래한 이 사건 제1어음의 만기 연장을 위하여 공영토건 발행의 액면 금 80억 원, 지급기일 1997. 12. 11.인 약속어음으로 대체하면서 연 11%의 할인율에 따른 이자를 지급받았고, 그 과정에서도 역시 파산회사로부터 어음의 실물은 교부받지 아니한 채 어음보관통장상으로만 위 어음의 보관 사실을 기입하여 받음과 동시에 배서/보증란에 파산회사의 기명·날인이 된 자유화매출계산서(갑 5호증의 2, 위 기명·날인과는 별도로 그 계산서 하단에 다시 파산회사 대표이사의 직인이 날인되어 있다)를 교부받은 사실, 원고는 파산회사가 1997. 12. 10. 재정경제원장관으로부터 경영악화로 정상적인 업무수행이 어렵다는 이유로 업무정지명령을 받은 후인 1997. 12. 11., 1998. 1. 12., 같은 달 15., 같은 달 22.에도 공영토건 및 파산회사와의 협의에 따라 어음의 만기 연장을 위하여 각 지급기일이 도래한 어음을 같은 액면금의 지급기일이 연장된 약속어음으로 대체하면서 할인이자(할인율은 1997. 12. 11. 할인시 13.1%, 그 이후 할인시는 각 15%였음)는 파산회사로부터 어음관리계좌 예탁금으로 지급받았으며, 1998. 1. 31. 파산회사로부터 약속어음금 80억 원 중 10억 원을 지급받고 나머지 70억 원에 대하여는 공영토건 발행의 액면 70억 원, 지급기일 1998. 2. 9.인 약속어음 1매로 대체하면서 연 15%의 할인율에 의한 할인료를 어음관리계좌 예탁금으로 지급받은 뒤 같은 해 2. 9.과 파산회사가 재정경제원장관으로부터 영업인가취소를 받은 같은 달 17. 이후인 같은 달 19.에도 각 지급기일이 도래한 어음을 공영토건 발행의 같은 액면금의 약속어음으로 대체하고 이자를 지급받았으며, 같은 달 26. 지급기일이 도래한 어음을 액면 70억 원, 지급기일 1998. 3. 13.인 약속어음 1매(이하 '이 사건 제2 어음'이라 한다)로 대체하고 연 15%의 할인율에 따른 이자는 공영토건으로부터 지급받은 사실을 각 인정한 다음, 파산회사가 이 사건 제1 어음을 원고에게 할인 매출할 당시 파산회사 등의 종합금융회사들이 종합금융회사업무운용지침과는 달리 은행 등의 지급보증을 받지 못한 기업어음을 원고와 같은 기관투자가에게 할인 매출함에 있어서 원활한 할인 매출을 위하여 그 매출 어음에 대하여 이면 보증을 하는 사례가 많았던 점, 위 할인 매출 당시 파산회사가 원고에게 작성하여 준 자유화매출계산서의 배서/보증란에 파산회사의 기명을 한 것이 이 사건 제1 어음의 무담보배서인임을 확인하는 의미에 불과하였다면 위 매출계산서에 담당직원의 취급자인을 날인하는 외에 구태여 파산회사의 기명 옆에 대표이사의 직인을 날인할 필요가 없었던 점(1997. 9. 11. 이 사건 제1 어음의 만기 연장을 위한 대체 어음의 할인 매출 당시 작성된 자유화매출계산서에는 배서/보증란의 파산회사 기명 옆에 대표이사 직인이 날인된 외에 하단에 다시 대표이사의 직인이 날인되어 있고 그 이후 대체된 어음의 할인 매출 당시 배서/보증란을 공란으로 하여 작성된 각 매출계산서에는 그 하단에 파산회사 담당직원의 취급자인 또는 지배인의 날인만 되어 있음), 원고로서도 공영토건에 대한 위 동아건설산업 주식회사의 연대보증부 기존의 신용대출금 80억 원을 파산회사를 통하여 공영토건 발행의 기업어음을 할인 매입하는 방식으로 상환받고 위와 같이 할인 어음 채권으로 전환함에 있어서 파산회사의 지급보증 등 별도의 담보를 제공받지 않는다는 것은 이례적인 것으로 보여지는 점, 원고가 이 사건 제1 어음을 할인 매입할 당시 어음보관통장의 보관어음의 구분란에 무담보부기업어음을 나타내는 'WO'가 아니라 자유기업어음을 나타내는 'CP'로 기재되어 있었던 점 등에 비추어, 파산회사는 원고에게 이 사건 제1 어음을 할인 매출함에 있어서 같은 어음의 발행인인 공영토건에 의한 어음금의 지급을 민사상 보증하였다고 봄이 상당하다고 판단하였다.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, the omission of judgment, the lack of reasons, or the interpretation of declaration of intent, the declaration of intention, and the misapprehension of legal principles as to the improper representation. The allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

2. As to the validity of the bill of exchange

If a merchant bank, which purchased a new-type corporate bill (CP) from an issuing company, sells it to ordinary investors, and then keeps and manages the bill in the bill management account (CMA) of the merchant bank after being entrusted with the custody of the bill and collection at maturity, the merchant bank’s obligation under the bill is extinguished, and civil liability under the bill is also extinguished. It does not change on the ground that ordinary investors purchased a new-type corporate bill with the collection money, and did not deposit cash with the bill management account, or did not actually withdraw cash from the bill management account.

However, in case where the former bill is recovered and the new bill is issued and delivered in accordance with a written statement agreement between the parties to postpone the maturity of the obligations under the former bill, the obligations under the former bill shall be extinguished. However, in case where the obligations under the former bill are substantially identical to those under the new bill, unless there are special circumstances, the security or civil guarantee for the obligations under the former bill shall continue to exist as it is for the obligations under the new bill.

According to the records, as of June 197, the plaintiff had a credit loan maturity of KRW 16.6 billion, among which, 8.6 billion was extended, 8.6 billion won was established to convert the remaining 8. billion won into the Guarantee CP, and purchased the instant bill through a bankruptcy company after consultation with the bankruptcy company and the public soil. Upon the maturity of the first bill of this case, the plaintiff decided to extend the maturity upon consultation with the bankruptcy company and the public soil. Upon the maturity of the first bill of this case, the bankruptcy company entrusted with the collection by the plaintiff receives only the amount of discount charge from the public soil and the remaining principal was settled as payment only on the documents, and then purchased a bill again from the public soil and sold it to the plaintiff, and arranged that the remaining principal was treated as the principal of the bill of this case at the maturity of January 31, 1998.

According to the above circumstances, in order to extend the maturity of the bill No. 1 of this case under a three-party bill opening agreement between the plaintiff, public land, and bankruptcy company, the bill No. 2 of this case shall be deemed to exist with respect to the obligations of the newly opened bill as well as the validity of civil guarantee under the bill No. 1 of this case, unless there are special circumstances, such as where there is a clear special agreement to oppose the above opening of maturity, it shall be deemed that the validity of a new bill No. 1 of this case remains in existence with respect to the obligations of the newly opened bill.

The court below is justified in holding that the civil guarantee liability of the bankrupt company for the debt under the bill 1 of this case continues to exist for the debt under the bill 2 of this case issued by the order for the extension of maturity after the maturity. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the bill 1 of this case. The argument in the grounds of appeal as to this point is not acceptable.

3. As to the validity of Article 11(1) of the Merchant Banks Business Management Guidelines

Article 11 (1) of the Merchant Banks Business Management Guidelines established and implemented pursuant to Article 21 of the Merchant Banks Act limits the acts of guarantee by a merchant bank. However, the purport of this provision is that, in principle, the business of a merchant bank which is a profit-making corporation is entrusted to its autonomy, but it is intended to promote the sound management, etc. of a merchant bank by restricting the act of guarantee in certain cases due to the public nature of a general financial business. Therefore, even if the act of guarantee was performed in violation of this provision, it does not affect the validity under private law, and it does not change because the other party to the guarantee was aware of the contents of this provision (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da31493, Nov. 10, 200).

The court below is just in holding that the civil guarantee against the gold obligations of the first bill of this case cannot be deemed null and void in violation of the main sentence of Article 11 (1) of the Merchant Bank Business Operation Guidelines which prohibits a merchant bank from guaranteeing payment against the unguaranteed corporate bills without any payment guarantee by the bank, etc., and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the act of guarantee in violation of the Merchant Bank Business Operation Guidelines.

The precedents cited by the Defendant regarding the legal nature of Article 11(1) of the Merchant Banks Business Management Guidelines are different from those of this case, and it is inappropriate to apply this case to this case.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the guarantee act is null and void because the defendant committed a legal act in violation of Article 11 (1) of the Merchant Banks Business Management Guidelines, which is a regulation provision, in collusion with the plaintiff and the bankrupt company, and committed a guarantee act in violation of good morals and other social order. However, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as it is newly asserted at the trial

4. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the act of the bankruptcy company's civil guarantee against the first bill of this case cannot be deemed as an act of free payment or a commercial act of concurrent payment as stipulated in Article 64 subparagraph 5 of the Bankruptcy Act, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)