Liability of the person who issued the financing note

A person who has issued a promissory note for financial or debt security of another person shall not be liable for a bill against the melting party, but shall not oppose against the defense that it was a financing bill issued without compensation, even though it was a financing bill issued without compensation to the third party who has acquired it, in good faith or bad faith, or by endorsement after the time limit.

Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1217 Decided August 31, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 69Da975,976 Decided September 30, 1969

Attorney Lee Young-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

동아휄트주식회사 소송대리인 변호사 박우재

Busan District Court Decision 78Na147 delivered on February 23, 1979

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since all the payment place and place of the non-party to the non-party are Busan City, Busan City, Busan Bank's ideology and place of payment (1) 1,00,000 won at par value, 8.2 (2) of the same year 4.23 of the same year, and 6.23 of the same year, the non-party issued two promissory notes to the non-party to the above Paragraph (1) at will on August 28, 197, the above payment date for the above Paragraph (1) is 10.28 of the same year, and the non-party cannot be paid for the non-party to the non-party by the non-party to the above bill at the time of delivery, and the non-party cannot be paid for the non-party to the above Paragraph (2) at the time of delivery of the bill again with the non-party to the non-party to the above bill at 10.30% of the above bill after the due date for the above Paragraph (2) of this case.

In light of the records, the fact that the defendant issued the above bill to the non-party only for the convenience of borrowing money without any relation to the non-party, and the above non-party's fact-finding that the payment date of the above bill was altered over several occasions as the above facts recognized, and that the above non-party transferred the bill to the plaintiff by endorsement after the due date is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no merit in this regard.

However, the facts acknowledged by the court below do not recognize that the above non-party obtained the above bills from the defendant as a financing bill and recovered them for the purpose of financing and transferred them as an endorsement after the due date to the plaintiff (the above non-party, who is the final judgment of the court below, changed the payment date of the above bills over several occasions, and then transferred them to the plaintiff, it is difficult to conclude that the above non-party immediately used the above bills for the purpose of financing at the time of the original payment or the altered payment date and then returned them again to the plaintiff. According to the records, it is difficult to conclude that the non-party, who is the above final judgment of the court of first instance, used them for the original payment date or the altered payment date, and then transferred them again to the plaintiff. The above non-party's testimony was made during the testimony of the new witness of the court of first instance. However, according to the record verification of the court of first instance, it is difficult to view that the above non-party merely obtained the above bill to accomplish the payment date by altering the payment date of the bill to the plaintiff.

I think that the person who issued a promissory note for financial or debt security of another person is not liable for the promissory note. However, such a reason is that it can only be asserted against the party who received the promissory note. Since the third party who received the promissory note was issued with the intention to bear the obligation on the promissory note, it cannot be asserted against the defense that the third party was a loan bill issued without the relation of the party, even if its acquisition was done in bad faith or by endorsement after the due date, (see Supreme Court Decisions 65Da1217, Aug. 31, 1968 and 69Da975,976, Sept. 30, 196), it cannot be viewed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the delivery of the said note, which affected the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the court below did not accept the above issuance of the promissory note after the due date, or that the court below did not accept the above issuance of the promissory note after the due date.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division, which is the court below, for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)