logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1993. 10. 22. 선고 93다26991 판결
[이득상환][공1993.12.15.(958),3154]
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)

arrow
심급 사건
-창원지방법원 1993.4.22.선고 92나6765
참조조문
본문참조조문