[1] Whether guarantee of a bill of exchange is guaranteed in addition to a bill’s liabilities (negative)

[2] The case holding that even if the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund entered into a credit guarantee contract with an enterprise a stipulation stating a transaction obligation in the preservation of a bill issued by the enterprise for the guarantee of the price for goods, it is interpreted to specify the transaction subject to the security of the bill, and it cannot be deemed that it directly and severally guaranteed the transaction obligation, not a bill guarantee, but a bill guarantee

[3] The meaning of an agreement which provides that the Credit Guarantee Fund shall bear the responsibility to guarantee the total sum of the liabilities guaranteed by bills under the previous credit guarantee agreement and the liabilities guaranteed by bills under a new credit guarantee agreement, in order to guarantee the liabilities for the purchase of goods by a company under a credit guarantee agreement with an enterprise with a certain guarantee period fixed.

[1] Article 428 of the Civil Code, Articles 30 and 77(3) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 428 of the Civil Code, Articles 30 and 77(3) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [3] Article 105 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da37005 delivered on December 9, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 227), Supreme Court Decision 98Da2051 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1981) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Da46455 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2124), Supreme Court Decision 96Da54607 delivered on April 11, 197

Persons in harmony (Attorney Park Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

(Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na65178 delivered on May 24, 2005

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

1. In principle, a person who guarantees a bill explicitly in a promissory note issued by another person is liable only for the obligations arising from the guarantee of the bill. In particular, a person is liable for the guarantee of the obligation arising from the guarantee of the bill. Thus, even if the guarantee of the bill was made on a promissory note issued and delivered by another person for the guarantee of the payment of the goods, barring any special circumstance to deem that the guarantee of the bill was made on the part of another person for the guarantee of the payment of the goods, the mere fact that the person, as the guarantor of the bill, knew that the bill was issued and delivered for the guarantee of the payment of the goods, cannot be viewed otherwise on the ground that it was the fact that the bill was issued and delivered for the guarantee of the payment of the goods (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da3705, Dec. 9, 1997; 98Da2051, Jun. 26, 1998, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes on the guarantee of bills, which the defendant agreed as part of its work, although the defendant entered into a credit guarantee contract with Yangyang-N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Yangyang-N") in a statement of obligation for transactions under an agency contract between Yangyang-N and Mando Mutual Assistance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Mando Mutual Assistance"), each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of this case, it is interpreted to specify the object of the security because each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of this case was issued as a security bill, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant expressed his/her intent to directly guarantee the obligation for the transaction, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the guarantee of obligation under the rules of evidence, even if the defendant knew that the bill of this case was issued and delivered for the security payment for the goods.

2. According to the records, in guaranteeing the obligation of a bill issued by the defendant to guarantee the payment of goods under the credit guarantee contract with Yangyang-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

3. Meanwhile, according to the records, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the debt approval and installment repayment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was made by mistake or by coercion of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. The amount of KRW 20 million paid by the plaintiff to the defendant after the debt approval and installment repayment agreement was paid by the defendant for the repayment of the indemnity to the defendant according to the contract under the previous credit guarantee agreement, and it was not paid for the repayment of the debt newly borne by the plaintiff. Thus, even if the debt approval and installment repayment agreement were invalidated later as the violation of the plaintiff's agreement, it shall not be returned. In the same purport, the court below's decision that rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the debt approval and installment repayment agreement were made by mistake or coercion, or that the amount of KRW 20 million was unjust enrichment, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)