In a case where a promissory note issued as a financing bill for a debtor's borrowing of money for an enterprise bonds is acquired in order to receive payment of the price for the goods regardless of whether it is an enterprise bond before the base date stipulated in the emergency order for the stabilization and growth of the economy, whether the said obligation constitutes an enterprise bond as stipulated in the above emergency order 10 (4).

If the issuer of a promissory note is not a direct corporate bond relationship, but a promissory note is issued as a so-called financing bill for the debtor's borrowing of money in another corporate bond relationship, and if the plaintiff acquires the said promissory note for the repayment of the price for the goods regardless of the corporate bond no later than the basic date stipulated in the emergency order on the economic stability and growth, the above obligations of the company's promissory note are an urgent means of payment, in relation to the plaintiff, issued by the company in lieu of or in connection with the repayment of the bonds, and is not an urgent means of payment, which falls under Article

Uniforms

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul Central District Court Decision 73Na157 delivered on November 22, 1974

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

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal:

In its reasoning explanation, the judgment below issued a promissory note at the face value of 3,200,00 won in the name of the non-party 1 corporation, the payment date of 8.20,000 won in the name of the non-party 1 corporation, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of payment, the commercial bank name of the Korea Commercial Bank, and the fact that the plaintiff presented a promissory note at the payment date as the holder of the above promissory note but the payment refusal was not in dispute between the parties, and the non-party 1 corporation and Samjin-in corporation, the representative director of the defendant company, as of July 9, 1972, determined that the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation were the above non-party 1 corporation to whom the above non-party 3 corporation had been involved, and that the above non-party 1 corporation issued the above promissory note to the above non-party 1 corporation and the above non-party 2 corporation did not issue the above non-party 1 corporation to the above non-party 1 corporation to the above non-party 1 corporation 2, the above non-party 3 corporation.

However, as in the facts found in the judgment below, the defendant company, the issuer of the above Promissory Notes, is not a debtor in a direct corporate bond relationship, but merely issued the above Promissory Notes in order to borrow money from the above Samjin-F Co., Ltd., the debtor in a corporate bond relationship, and the circumstance leading up to the issuance of such Promissory Notes is not indicated on the Promissory Notes. Thus, if the plaintiff acquired the above Promissory Notes in order to receive payment for the goods without any relationship with the corporate bonds before the date of the above Emergency Order, then the above Promissory Notes's obligations cannot be viewed as bonds falling under Article 10 (4) of the above Emergency Order because the company's obligation for the above Promissory Notes cannot be seen as a means of payment in lieu of the repayment of the bonds or delivery in connection with the above Emergency Order, in relation to the plaintiff, as a means of payment delivered by the company in lieu of or in connection with

Therefore, since the original judgment does not dismiss the reversal, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Spanmun-gu (Presiding Justice)