Whether a claim for the redemption of benefit of the holder of a promissory note, in cases where it is possible to exercise such claim in the relationship with which the claim is due after the expiration of prescription

If a bill has been issued to secure the payment of a claim which is in a causal relation, the claim for reimbursement of benefit may not be created unless the claim which is in a causal relation has been extinguished after the rights on the bill have

Article 85 of the former Criminal Code, Article 79 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Food and Drug Bank of Korea

Republic of Maternia

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na534 delivered on February 14, 1963, Seoul High Court Decision 62Na534 delivered on February 14, 1963

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in borrowing money from the plaintiff, the non-party Dong Telecommunication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dong Telecommunication Co., Ltd.) issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 110,000 on January 23, 1954 at the time of payment, and the defendant holds the plaintiff by endorsement and transfer in blank on the same day at the time of payment place in Seoul Special Metropolitan City. This promissory note is the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for a loan to the party related to the above promissory note, but this claim also became final and conclusive due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff lost the plaintiff's rights under the above agreement cannot be viewed as being inconsistent with the above agreement and the defendant cannot be viewed as being jointly and severally liable for damages if it is not possible to obtain the plaintiff's rights under the above agreement to recover profits when it exercised rights under the bill of exchange and Promissory note after the lapse of the statute of limitations.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in the application of Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge) shall have the highest leapbal leapap