In cases where both a bill of exchange and a bill issued or endorsed in order to secure the obligation arising from a causeal relationship have expired by prescription, whether a right to claim reimbursement of benefit against the drawer or endorser has arisen (negative)

If a bill has been issued or endorsed to secure a debt under a cause-based relationship, the right to claim reimbursement of benefit against the drawer or endorser shall not be created even if the claim under the bill has expired, and this shall also apply regardless of whether the claim under the cause-based relationship has expired due to prescription, etc., and the time has expired or not after the expiration of the obligation under the bill.

Article 79 of the Bills of Exchange

Supreme Court Decision 63Da155 delivered on May 15, 1963 (Gong11-1, 320), Supreme Court Decision 91Da4043 Delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1417), Supreme Court Decision 93Da26991 Delivered on October 22, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3154)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 9Na18807 delivered on January 21, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party, a merchant of the above promissory note, intended to endorse and deliver to the plaintiff a promissory note amounting to KRW 19,80,000 for the payment of the purchase price of goods, such as steel, to the plaintiff around May 1994, with the amount of KRW 32,80,000, face value as of October 12, 1994. The plaintiff demanded the joint and several surety of the above obligation, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation, and delivered the above promissory note to the plaintiff with the above non-party, which is the principal obligor as the collateral. The plaintiff presented the payment date of the above promissorysory note but refused to pay it without trade. However, the defendant's right to the above guaranteed bond was to guarantee the above obligation of the non-party to the plaintiff, and the defendant's right to the above guaranteed bond was extinguished for 10 years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period under the Civil Act.

2. However, in a case where a bill has been issued or endorsed in order to secure the obligation arising from a causeal relationship, the right to claim reimbursement of profits against the drawer or endorser shall not be created even if the right to claim reimbursement expires by the statute of limitations. This is a party member’s view that the claim arising from the causeal relationship is extinguished due to the extinction of the statute of limitations, and that the same shall apply regardless of whether the time is later prior to or after the expiration of the statute of limitations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da26991, Oct. 22, 1993; 91Da4043, Mar. 31, 1992; 63Da155, May 15, 1963).

Therefore, according to the above precedents, if the endorsement of the above bill by the defendant for the guarantee of the defendant's guarantee obligation against the plaintiff, the right to claim reimbursement of benefit against the defendant does not occur even if the defendant's obligation as the endorser is extinguished by the statute of limitations.

Nevertheless, the court below's interpretation that the claim for redemption of benefit against the defendant was made to the plaintiff who is the holder of the above bill and its underlying claim since the statute has expired in whole, it is clear that the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment where it is inconsistent with the judgment issued by the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the law applicable to the above specific case under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)