[1] Unmanned of the act of bills

[2] In a case where an issuer himself/herself is a underlying relationship for the issuance of a bill and the addressee invoked it, whether the court can acknowledge the facts that conflict with this (negative)

[1] Article 17 and Article 77 (1) 1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da52649 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2676), Supreme Court Decision 96Da52205 delivered on May 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1704) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da2489 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2746)

Maritime Cooperatives (Law Firm Newcheon, Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Honghae Food Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na51296 decided April 27, 2007

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The act of a bill must be dealt with separately from the underlying relationship of the acceptance of a bill as an unmanned act, and since a bill represents rights to a bill regardless of the underlying relationship, the holder of the bill can exercise his rights to the bill solely with the fact that he is the holder and does not require proof as to which he has any real interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da52649, Jul. 25, 1997; 96Da52205, May 22, 1998). Therefore, in a case where the receiver claims against the issuer for a bill against the issuer, the underlying relationship of the issuance of the bill and the circumstance where the obligation was already paid shall be proved by the issuer’s assertion. As such, as long as the issuer himself assumes the burden of proof, the establishment of a judicial confession was made with respect to this issue, and as long as the payee has invoked it, it cannot be acknowledged that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and it cannot be accepted as a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 994).92).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the defendant's defense that the defendant's obligation of this case was extinguished due to the extinguishment of the cause obligation, while the defendant issued three copies of the Promissory Notes with face value of KRW 100 million (hereinafter "the Promissory Notes") to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff presented payment at each payment date as the final holder of the Promissory Notes, but all refused payment. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total sum of KRW 300 million and damages for delay after the due date. However, the defendant's defense that the obligation of this case was extinguished due to the extinguishment of the cause obligation is "the Promissory Notes was issued to guarantee the defendant's obligation of payment for the goods to be borne or to be borne by the defendant under the transaction agreement with the plaintiff." The defendant's obligation of payment for the goods of KRW 76,328,000, which was actually borne by the defendant under the above transaction agreement with the plaintiff was extinguished after the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was completed and the payment clause was terminated."

However, in light of the records, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below as it is against the legal principles of confession in court as seen earlier.

First, on August 19, 2005, the Plaintiff’s notice of this case was issued by the first instance court for the first time, stating that “The Plaintiff’s 200-year cooperative head and Nonparty 1, etc. agreed to purchase the above 100,000 won (which means the whole laver) with the Plaintiff’s 200-year cooperative head,” and that KRW 500,000 shall be issued as a bill each time the outstanding amount on credit is 50,000 won or more,” and the Defendant’s statement of this case was 70,000 won or more at the warehouse in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant issued the above 70-year container as 700,000 won or more after the Plaintiff’s statement of this case was 60,000 won or more in the name of the Defendant’s 1,0000 won.” On the other hand, the Defendant’s statement of this case’s 1,700,0000 won or more.

Thus, unlike the defendant's assertion, the fact that the bill of this case was issued in order to guarantee the payment of the price for the goods to the plaintiff of "the defendant and the Native Food," that the underlying obligation of the bill of this case is limited to the goods payment obligation against the plaintiff of "the defendant who is wholly separate from the Native Food," was established as a result of the defendant's confession. However, since the defendant proved that the confession was contrary to the truth and was caused by mistake, the court cannot find the facts contrary to the confession (However, as alleged by the plaintiff, whether the bill of this case covers the interest obligation and the compensation obligation in addition to the foreign food payment obligation).

In addition, the following circumstances revealed in the record, i.e., the defendant's specific assertion, i.e., the non-party 2, a person in charge of purchasing and managing the Native Food, was present at the court of first instance as a witness of the defendant, and "the plaintiff was entitled to KRW 100 million each time the outstanding amount arises from the transaction with Native Food, and the defendant was about KRW 2 billion 50 million each at the time of the transaction with Native Food, and the defendant's testimony to the effect that the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, 30,000,000,000 won, 1.4,000,000 won, 2,000,000 won, 3,000,000 won, 2,000,000 won, 3,000,00 won, 2,000 won.

Nevertheless, the court below judged against this and rejected the plaintiff's claim for the payment of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the confession in court and finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence without any evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)