In cases where a promissory note has been issued and delivered for the payment of the price of the goods pursuant to an agreement between the buyer and the seller on the method of payment of the price of the goods, the due date for the payment of the price of the goods (i.e., the due date of the bill) and the due date for the payment of the price of the goods where the said promissory note was rejected prior to the due date, whether

Where a buyer issues and delivers a promissory note to a seller for the payment of the price of goods under an agreement between the seller and the seller for the payment of the price of the goods, the due date for the payment of the price of the goods is the due date of the promissory note, and even if the said promissory note has been rejected prior to the due date for the payment suspension of the issuer, the due date for the payment of the price of the goods does not reach the due date for the payment refusal.

Articles 105, 387 of the Civil Act, Article 1 subparag. 4, 43, 75 subparag. 3, and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu861 Decided December 14, 1982 (Gong1983, 279) Supreme Court Decision 89Meu32606 Decided June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1572) Supreme Court Decision 9Da24508 Decided August 24, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1951)

Mo lecture Hall Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sam, Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Gi-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na2728 delivered on May 3, 2000

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

In cases where a promissory note is issued and delivered to the seller for the payment of the price of the goods under an agreement between the seller and the seller for the payment of the price of the goods, the due date for the payment of the price of the goods is the due date of the promissory note (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da24508, Aug. 24, 199). The due date for the payment of the price of the goods is the due date of the promissory note (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da24508, Aug. 24, 199).

The decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the interpretation of legal acts and terms and conditions, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)