(a) requirements for the endorser of a promissory note to assume the obligation to guarantee the cause obligation;

(b) The amount of loan, in cases where interest exceeding the limit of the Interest Limitation Act is deducted as interest;

A. In principle, in a case where a promissory note issued by another person makes an endorsement to the effect of a guarantee, the endorser is liable only for the obligation arising out of the endorsement. However, only if the bill is issued in lieu of the instrument of borrowing and it is endorsed by the endorser in a manner that guarantees civil cause obligations with the knowledge of such circumstance, the endorser is liable to guarantee the obligation as to the cause obligation.

B. If interest exceeding the limitation of the Interest Limitation Act is deducted as interest and the excess is null and void. Therefore, the debtor is obligated to pay only the sum of interest within the limitation scope of the above law as the leased principal on the due date until the due date for payment for this amount is due and the loan for consumption is null and void for the difference between the amount of the agreed loan and the amount of the agreed loan.

A. Article 428 of the Civil Act; Articles 77(1)1 and 15(b) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 598 of the Civil Act; Article 2 of the Interest Limitation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu783 delivered on July 22, 1986 (Gong1986, 1106) (Gong1988, 268) 92Da17457 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993, 557) (Gong1981, 1484 delivered on January 17, 1989)

Plaintiff Seocho Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na24416 delivered on April 2, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on macroficial evidence, presented two promissory notes with the face value of 66,000,000 won and 55,000,000 won in the name of the non-party 2 and the defendant around February 11, 1991, which are issued in the name of the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 and the defendant, and then requested the above non-party 2 to lend business funds. The plaintiff demanded the above non-party 1's endorsement and the defendant's endorsement on the above form, but the defendant did not have the seal at the time, delegated the above non-party 1 with his official seal affixed to the non-party 1, who was issued in the name of the non-party 2 and the non-party 1, and delivered the above 10,000 won and the remaining 10,000 won after deducting the above 10,000 won and the remaining 10,000 won.

First of all, the records are examined in detail, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the non-party 1 was taking the plaintiff as the plaintiff as the plaintiff was at the time of original adjudication, or that the plaintiff demanded the above non-party 2 and the defendant's endorsement at the seat of the non-party 2 and the defendant. Rather, according to the records, the non-party 1 of the first instance court's witness found the above non-party 2 and the defendant at the above witness and requested the discount of the promissory note in this case. At the above witness's request, the defendant entrusted the above witness with the endorsement by affixing the defendant's seal, and the plaintiff and the defendant testified that the non-party 2 were also ambiguous. Accordingly, the part of the court below's statement that the non-party 1 had been carrying the plaintiff as the plaintiff and the defendant. However, the court below's approval of other facts is acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the litigation, etc.

B. After recognizing the above facts, the court below determined that the above non-party 2 gave the above bills in lieu of the loan certificate to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's demand for endorsement is a security for the loan obligation, upon the plaintiff's request, with full knowledge of the fact that the above non-party 2 borrowed money from the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant expressed his intent to stand as a joint and several surety for the above non-party 2's loan obligation.

However, in a case where a promissory note issued by another person is endorsed for the purpose of guarantee, the endorser shall, in principle, bear only the obligation arising from the act of endorsement. However, the endorser shall be liable to guarantee the obligation arising from the act of endorsement only if the bill was issued in lieu of the instrument of endorsement and endorsed in the manner that the endorser knowingly guarantees the obligation arising from civil cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1105, Dec. 8, 1987; 92Da17457, Dec. 22, 1992; 92Da17457, Dec. 2, 1992). As seen above, there is no evidence supporting the fact that the plaintiff requested the defendant to make endorsement, and it is recognized that the non-party 1 requested the above non-party 1 to present the obligation under the name of the defendant in lieu of the instrument of borrowing money, and even if the defendant made and delivered an endorsement, it is difficult to view the above fact that the non-party 2 demanded the plaintiff to pay the money to the plaintiff.

C. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability of the endorser of a promissory note, failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or finding facts without evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore,

2. On the second ground for appeal

If interest exceeding the limit of the Interest Limitation Act is deducted as interest and the excess is null and void. Thus, the debtor is obligated to pay only the sum of interest within the limit of the above law until the due date for payment for this amount is due and the loan for consumption with respect to the difference between the agreed amount and the agreed amount shall be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2824 delivered on January 17, 1989).

According to the facts and records established by the court below, at around February 11, 1991, the plaintiff extended to the non-party 2 66,00,000 foot bill with the due date on May 20, 1991 and 55,000,000 foot bill with the face value on May 10, 1991 and 55,00,000,000 won with the due date on May 10, 199 and 1,00,00,000 won after deducting the pre-paid interest, etc... The due date of the payment of the bill shall be deemed as due date unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the interest on the due date and the due date of repayment in this case shall exceed 25,00,000 won per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, and even if the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the due date, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above-mentioned loan amount and damages for delay.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)