(a) Validity of conditional guarantee of bills;

(b) Whether an employer is liable under the Civil Act, where an employee has forged the conditional bill guarantee portion of the employer's name, but the employer becomes unable to take the responsibility for guarantee due to the unfulfillment of the conditions;

A. In the case of a guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, there is no express provision demanding simplification, such as in the case of issuance and endorsement, and in that it is an incidental obligation premised on the principal obligation, the acceptance of a bill similar to the guarantee is recognized. In light of the fact that the acceptance of a bill of exchange is more strict and simple than in the case of the acceptance of a bill of exchange, it is reasonable to regard the conditional guarantee as valid, and thus, it does not undermine the safety of the bill transaction, and thus, it is reasonable to regard the non-simplified guarantee subject to the condition as the guarantor’s liability in accordance with the terms of the conditional guarantee.

B. In cases where an employee forges a guarantee of a bill issued in the name of the employer that the payment of the bill will be guaranteed by the due date, and even if the holder has sustained losses by making a contribution to acquire the bill with the belief that the above forged guarantee was genuine, the payment of the bill shall not be held liable for the guarantee due to the words of the bill, unless the condition of the guarantee was not fulfilled due to the failure to present the payment within the period for the presentment of payment, and thus it is impossible to enforce the guarantee liability due to the words of the bill, the employee as the guarantor of the bill, thereby incurring

B. Article 756(a) of the Civil Code; Article 32 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1600 Decided March 11, 1986

Lighting;

Defendant Kim-sub, Attorney Lee Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na3417 delivered on November 26, 1984

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

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who was in charge of lending the above non-party 3 branch office and was in charge of the payment guarantee of promissory notes issued by the non-party 3 company on behalf of the head of the above branch office at the above branch office, in collusion with the non-party 4 and the non-party 5, who is the representative director, around 19:00 after the completion of business affairs on July 6, 1983, the rubber name and official seal, etc. used for payment guarantee of promissory notes in the above branch office were stolen and delivered to the non-party 6, who is an employee of the above non-party company, 30,000 won in the above non-party company's name's 30,000,000 won in face value of the issuance of the above non-party company, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who acquired the above payment guarantee letter at the above 1,1000,000 and 98,00.

Upon examining the contents of evidence prepared by the court below based on the records, the court below's above fact-finding is just and judged that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is an employee of the defendant bank, act of forging the payment guarantee itself or an act related to such act is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of employer's liability, such as the argument.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the guarantee of payment of the above bill on condition that the payment of the bill is guaranteed only by the date of payment of the bill, and as long as the plaintiff makes a payment proposal after the date of payment, the defendant does not bear the obligation to pay the bill. In the case of limiting the scope of liability by setting the deadline for the bill of exchange, the time limit shall be deemed null and void, and it shall be deemed null and void and void.

However, in the case of a guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, there is no express provision demanding simplification as in the case of issuance and endorsement. In addition, in the case of a guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, in that it is an incidental obligation that assumes the principal obligation, and the conditions for acceptance of a bill similar to the guarantee are attached, the acceptance shall be deemed as once non-acceptance, but the underwriter shall be held liable in accordance with the terms and conditions of acceptance, and in view of the fact that the acceptance of a bill is recognized by allowing the underwriter to take responsibility in accordance with the terms and conditions of acceptance, the demand for more strict simplification than in the case of acceptance of the bill of exchange regarding the guarantee shall be deemed as null and void, and since the conditional guarantee is deemed as valid, it does not hinder the safety of the transaction of the bill, it shall not be deemed that the guarantor's liability arises according to the terms and conditions of the conditional guarantee, and the view that the remaining conditions emphasizing the simplification of the bill

According to the facts found by the court below, the wording of the bill guarantee of this case is to guarantee the payment of the bill by the date of payment. This is interpreted as conditional guarantee to guarantee the payment of the bill when the bill is presented within the period of payment presentment. Thus, even if the bill guarantee of this case is duly formed, the defendant, the guarantor, is liable for conditional guarantee in accordance with the letter of guarantee, and it is not liable for the guarantee even if the condition is not fulfilled even if the bill guarantee of this case is duly established.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff suffered losses by making contributions to the money to acquire the forged bill guarantee, it is not possible to seek payment of the above bill because the plaintiff, the holder of the bill, is the damage incurred by the defendant, who is the guarantor of the bill, believed and acquired the above bill guarantee as genuine, unless the plaintiff, who is the holder of the bill, fails to present a payment proposal within the period for presentment of payment, thereby making it impossible to enforce the liability for the guarantee due to the words of the bill because the condition of the guarantee is not fulfilled.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the validity of conditional bill guarantee and the user's liability for damages caused by tort, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)