Main Issues
Whether a claim for redemption of benefit occurs when a bill bond issued to secure payment of bonds lapses after prescription;
Summary of Judgment
If a bill has been issued to secure the payment of a claim in a causal relationship, the claim for reimbursement of benefit does not occur even if the bill is extinguished by the statute of limitation.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 79 of the Bills of Exchange
Reference Cases
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee) 91Da4043 decided Mar. 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1417) (Gong1993, 1274)
Plaintiff-Appellant
Plaintiff
Defendant-Appellee
Defendant
Judgment of the lower court
Changwon District Court Decision 92Na6765 delivered on April 22, 1993
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
If a bill has been issued to secure the payment of bonds in a causal relationship, the claim for reimbursement of profits does not occur even if the bill has expired due to the statute of limitations (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da4043 delivered on March 31, 192).
The court below did not have any evidence to find that the Promissory Notes in this case were issued and delivered in lieu of the repayment of the loan claims at the time of original sale, and therefore, it is presumed that the Promissory Notes were issued and delivered as collateral in order to secure the payment of the above loan claims or as collateral, and in this case, even if the Promissory Notes were extinguished by the statute of limitations, it does not have the right to claim reimbursement of profits under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. The above measures of the court below are just and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or lack of the right to request explanation,
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)