The legal nature of the bank's payment guarantee certificate and whether it is necessary to possess and present the payment guarantee certificate when claiming a payment guarantee deposit (negative)

The guarantee letter issued by a bank to guarantee the payment of goods price obligations by the debtor pursuant to a payment guarantee transaction agreement is merely a certificate issued by a civil guarantee, not securities. Thus, it is not necessarily necessary for the creditor to possess and present such guarantee certificate when the creditor claims the payment guarantee amount.

Article 428 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da311 Decided May 16, 1967 (No. 15-2, Doz.) Supreme Court Decision 80Da71 Decided November 11, 1980 (Gong1981, 13392)

Exchange Steel Industry Co., Ltd. (PS General Law Firm, Attorneys Kang Hong-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yang Yong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na33780 delivered on June 21, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below on the point of appeal are correct, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. The court below's decision that the payment guarantee letter of this case is merely a letter of guarantee issued by the civil guarantee that the defendant guarantees the payment of the above goods to the plaintiff of the non-party company, which is a specific debt, and it does not necessarily require the possession and presentation of the above payment guarantee certificate in claiming the above payment guarantee. Further, the court below's decision that the defendant's collection of the payment guarantee letter of this case through the non-party company should be ordered to increase or extend the amount and deadline of the payment guarantee letter of this case and deliver the payment guarantee letter of this case to the non-party company by deceiving the plaintiff to deliver the payment guarantee letter of this case to the non-party company, thereby recovering it through the non-party company, and the defendant collected the payment guarantee letter of this case through the non-party company prior to the expiration of the above contract period. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff delegated the right to terminate the above payment guarantee contract to the non-party company, or the defendant expressed his intention to cancel the above payment guarantee contract to the non-party company. On the other hand, even if the parties to the above payment guarantee contract and the non-party company cannot be seen as the plaintiff's.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)