[1] Whether a mutual savings and finance company’s gross negligence in acquiring bills is recognized solely on the ground that the mutual savings and finance company violated a loan provision that requires discount of commercial bills (negative)

[2] In a case where an employee of the payee company of a promissory note in collusion with a third party to forge the endorsement in the name of the payee company and received the discount of the bill from the mutual savings and finance company through an endorsement in the name of a third party, the case holding that some of the gross negligence in acquiring the bill is not recognized

[1] It shall not be deemed that a mutual savings and finance company's wrong discount on a commercial bill or financing bill issued for security in violation of the provision that a mutual savings and finance company shall discount commercial bill, and it shall not immediately constitute an acquisition of the bill in bad faith or

[2] In a case where employees of the receiver company of a promissory note in collusion with a third party to forge the endorsement in the name of the payee company and receive the discount of the bill from the mutual saving and finance company through an endorsement in the name of a third party, the case holding that with respect to the promissory note with problems in the endorsement, serious negligence in acquiring the promissory note is recognized, and that with respect to the promissory note with no problems in the endorsement,

[1] Articles 16(2) and 77(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Articles 16(2) and 77(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da32118 delivered on September 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2930), Supreme Court Decision 94Da55217 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1320), Supreme Court Decision 95Da19980 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3252), Supreme Court Decision 95Da43679 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3302)

Private Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Attorney Choi Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Law Firm Han River and two others (Attorney Kim Yong-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Han- Denmark Oil Processing Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Yong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na2483 delivered on June 5, 1996

Of the judgment below, the part of the judgment against the Defendant Hansung Co., Ltd. and the Defendant Korea Campte Co., Ltd. is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant Cho Jong River is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed judgment are assessed against the Plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The fact-finding and the summary of the reasoning of the judgment below are as follows.

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence cited by it.

(1) The Plaintiff, at the face value, issued bills representing 41,250,00 at face value (the first bill of this case) and the second bill representing 56,226,500 at face value (the second bill of this case was changed, but the trade name was changed; hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Commercialization Distribution”) at the Defendant Han Lan Co., Ltd. (the third bill of this case was 22,97,859 at face value (the third bill of this case) and the Defendant Korea Puad Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Puad Co., Ltd.”) at the discount of 94,541,200 (the fourth bill of this case) at face value, and delivered the bill of this case at the discount of Nonparty Co., Ltd., Ltd. (the supplementary bill of this case) to the Intervenor, each of the supplementary bill of this case (the supplementary bill of this case was hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor’s 1) and Nonparty Co., Ltd. (the supplementary Co., the Intervenor’s 2).).

(2) On the other hand, the above non-party 2, who had a close friendly relationship with the non-party 1, the head of the Gangnam branch of the plaintiff company, had a consultation with the above Jungcheon and the discount of bill by telephone on January 1, 1994. On January 14, 1994, the accounting director of the non-party 1, who had transacted with the above Gangnam branch of the defendant company for several years, was the managing director of the non-party 1, who was the non-party 1, and the representative director of the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, visiting the Gangnam branch of the plaintiff company with the documents necessary to conclude the bill transaction agreement with the plaintiff company. The plaintiff 1, who was the director of the board of directors and the above Gangnam branch of the plaintiff company, submitted a certificate of seal impression, the certificate of business registration, the letter of credit borrowing, the request for confirmation of small enterprise, and the employee discount of the plaintiff company's loan from the above 3rd branch of the defendant 1, the above loan bill of this case.

(3) However, the latter end of the bill Nos. 1 and 2 of this case stated the endorsement in the name of the non-party company rather than the "Koreanmark oil processing," which is the addressee, and after the cancelled endorsement, the supplementary intervenor's column of endorsement mentioned again as the "Koreanmark oil processing" was written, but the seal impression of the non-party company was affixed on the next side, but the seal impression of the non-party company was affixed. The representative director's seal affixed on the column of the non-party company's endorsement of the bill No. 1 of this case affixed a seal different from the seal impression in the employee identification application prepared and submitted to conclude the bill transaction agreement on the same day.

(4) The above non-party 2 demanded discount of the first bill of this case without attaching a copy of the receipt of the purchase price of goods and a certificate of delivery, while the bill of this case was acquired through the transaction of goods, and for about 15 days, the above non-party 2 offered a relatively large amount of KRW 215,000,000 (the document submitted at the time of concluding the bill transaction agreement is indicated as a small enterprise with the size of 25 employees) compared to the size of the non-party company for the 15 days.

(5) The Plaintiff Company did not investigate the assets and business conditions of the Nonparty Company, which was the first transaction with the Nonparty Company while making a discount on the bill, and did not submit the register of corporate register (which was submitted later) and prepared a credit investigation report on the day without conducting any actual investigation on the assets and business conditions of the Nonparty Company or on the goods offered as security of the Nonparty Company, and neglected to do so thereafter. Even after the implementation of the real name financial business system, the loan regulations of the Plaintiff Company still provide only commercial bills subject to discount, the said Gangnam Branch did not submit a copy of the receipt of the purchase price of the goods and a written confirmation of delivery from the Nonparty Company, and did not inquire of the Intervenor who was the endorser.

B. The lower court determined as follows based on the foregoing facts.

As a mutual savings and finance company operating mutual savings and finance business, the Plaintiff company should take more prudent measures to deal with the transaction of bills and the acquisition of discount notes than ordinary people. However, the Plaintiff company first commenced the transaction of bills with the Plaintiff company, which is the holder of each of the instant bills, and demanded a discount without attaching a receipt of goods or a written confirmation of delivery, compared to the size of the Nonparty company, or there was a circumstance to suspect the substantive non-party company’s non-party company’s right in light of the above problems in endorsement. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff company did not confirm each of the instant bills to the payee and the supplementary intervenor, the sole endorsement transferor, and only received them without confirming whether they were issued only to the Defendants, the issuer, and was grossly negligent.

2. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

3. In addition, if the facts are as determined by the court below, the court below's determination that the plaintiff company was grossly negligent in acquiring the bill Nos. 1 and 2 of this case of the issuance of the Defendant Sluri River shall be justified, and it shall not be deemed that there were errors by misapprehending the legal principles on bona fide acquisition of promissory notes, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case and their specific matters

4. However, the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff Company was grossly negligent in acquiring the instant bills Nos. 3 and 4 of the Plaintiff Company’s issuance of Chinese Commercialization and the issuance of the Defendant YAE is difficult to obtain in light of the following points.

According to the records, the bill Nos. 3 and 4 of this case are stamped with the name of the intervenor and the name of the representative indicated as the endorser, and the official seal of the representative director is also properly sealed. The non-party company stated that each of the above bills was acquired by continuous endorsement from the supplementary intervenor. Thus, there is no circumstance to suspect the substantial non-party company's non-party company's rights in the bill itself.

In addition, the non-party 2, the chairman of the Gangnam branch of the plaintiff company, who had a close relationship with the non-party 3, the chairman of the non-party 3, had a consultation about the discount of the bill by telephone, and the director of the accounting division of the non-party 4, who had transacted with the above Gangnam branch of the company for several years. At the time, the non-party Hongcheon, who was a management director of the non-party company, entered into a bill transaction agreement with the non-party 3, the representative director of the non-party 3, the non-party 4, and entered the non-party 4's original transaction of the bill at the above Gangnam branch. The non-party 3 did not have a significant problem in the issuance of the bill as to the non-party 4's issuance of the bill and did not request the plaintiff company's purchase of the bill by mistake or gross negligence, and did not request the non-party 1, the plaintiff company's issuance of the bill to the non-party 4's original issuance of the bill.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on bona fide acquisition of a promissory note in light of the fact that the plaintiff company was grossly negligent in acquiring the third and fourth bills of this case. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

5. Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court below on the defendant Han-han distribution and the part on the defendant Jeon-chul is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal on the defendant Jeon-chul is dismissed and the costs of appeal on the appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)