[1] Whether the obligor is liable to guarantee the obligation arising from the cause of the endorser of the bill (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that the owner is liable to guarantee the construction payment obligation, which is the underlying obligation, as the endorser of a promissory note

[1] In principle, a person who makes an endorsement on a promissory note issued or transferred by another person shall be liable only for the obligation arising out of the act of endorsement. In particular, the obligee shall be liable to guarantee the obligation arising out of the act of endorsement only in cases of endorsement with the intent to guarantee the obligee’s obligation that is the cause of the issuance or transfer of endorsement.

[2] The case holding that, in case where the owner of a project prepares and delivers a certificate of custody to the joint contractor B who is requested by the contractor A for the payment of the construction price, and issues and delivers a promissory note from the contractor B, and he transfers it to the subcontractor in advance in the second endorsement column of the promissory note, Gap makes an endorsement in the first endorsement column and transfers a promissory note to the subcontractor, the owner shall be deemed to have endorsed as the owner's intent to assume the responsibility for guaranteeing the obligation for the construction price to the subcontractor of the contractor in full view of the circumstances and degree of the owner's participation in the construction

Article 428 of the Civil Act, Articles 15 and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1106 (Gong106, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorneys Seo Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The Defendants respectively

A. The amount of 50,00,000 won per annum from January 31, 1994 to October 18, 1996 and the amount of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and

B. The amount of 50,000,000 won with an annual rate of 6% from January 16, 1994 to October 18, 1996 and the annual rate of 25% from the next day to the date of full payment;

C. The amount of 30,000,000 won with an annual rate of 6% from January 26, 1994 to October 18, 1996 and the annual rate of 25% from the next day to the date of full payment;

D. The amount of 65,00,000 won with an annual interest rate of 60% from April 1, 1994 to October 18, 1996 and the annual interest rate of 25% from the next day to the date of full payment;

E. The amount of 50,000,000 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from January 26, 1994 to October 18, 1996 and the annual interest rate of 25% from the next day to the date of full payment, shall be paid to Plaintiff 5, and the amount shall be paid at an annual interest rate of 5% from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2

As the Plaintiff’s cause of the instant claim against Defendant 2, each of the Defendant’s respective non-party 1 corporation or Defendant 1 as the addressee, and each of the non-party 1 corporation’s endorsement and transfer of each of the above promissory notes to each of the Plaintiffs, and Defendant 1 presented payment at the payment date as the final holder of each payment date, but the Plaintiffs presented payment refusal (this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unclear, but it is deemed that there was a legitimate payment proposal in light of all the starting point of the interest for delay sought in the claim of this case is the following day of the payment date of the said promissory notes), it is deemed that the Defendant led to confession under Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Thus, as the issuer of each of the above promissory notes, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay each of the plaintiffs the interest or delay damages from the day following each due date as requested by the plaintiff as the issuer of each of the above promissory notes.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1

A. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant only in paragraph (2)), or they can be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 1-1, 2 through 8-1, 1, 11, 12-1 through 14, 13, and 13, and non-party 2's testimony.

(1) On January 27, 1992, the Defendant entered into a construction contract with Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. (Representative Director Nonparty 2) and Nonparty 3 as a joint contractor, and entered into between the contractor and the Defendant, on the location of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu (hereinafter omitted), the total floor area of 00,000 square meters of underground 8 stories of 3 stories above 5,852.33 square meters, and the construction period of 5,180,000 square meters from January 27, 1992 to May 30, 1993, to pay the construction price as the loan and the lease deposit of the financial institution.

(2) Accordingly, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd., a contractor, entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiffs for certain construction works of the said ○○ building construction works, or received construction materials from the Plaintiffs.

In other words, the non-party 1 corporation entered into a subcontract with the plaintiff 1 on July 4, 1992 with the construction amount of KRW 855,00,000 for the construction works, and the plaintiff 2 engaged in the business of supplying the construction materials under the trade name of △ Contract, supplied electric wires, contactes, etc. in relation to the above construction, and the plaintiff 3 engaged in the automatic control installation work with the trade name of △△△△△△, supplied the automatic control devices in relation to the above construction. In addition, the non-party 1 corporation operated by the plaintiff 5 】 the subcontractor 】 the electrical construction 】 the subcontractor, and the plaintiff 4 executed the electrical construction as the former business operator of the Dong.

(3) As above, the Plaintiffs were awarded a subcontract for each construction work from Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd., and received each of the Promissory Notes endorsed by the Defendant in connection with the said construction work, and Nonparty 2 discontinued the construction work under the condition that part of the said building was left behind on November 1994.

B. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs asserts that the defendant, as the owner of the above ○ building, is the owner of the above ○ building, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the amount equivalent to the face value of the promissory note to the plaintiffs, since each of the promissory note is transferred by endorsement

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the Dong did not have any duty to pay the construction cost, etc. to the plaintiffs since it did not have any delegation or transaction of part of the construction work of this case.

(2) Therefore, considering the Defendant’s request for the issuance of promissory note No. 9, No. 10-1, No. 13, No. 14-1, and No. 3-7, No. 14-2, and No. 15-3, No. 14-2, No. 6, No. 7, and No. 8’s testimony, it is difficult for Nonparty 2 to directly issue to Nonparty 1, who is the Defendant’s owner of the instant promissory note No. 6, and to deliver it to Nonparty 2, who is the representative director of the instant corporation, and it is difficult for Nonparty 3 to separately issue the Promissory note No. 6 to Nonparty 1, who is the Plaintiff’s owner of the instant construction, and to distribute profits to Nonparty 2, who is the Plaintiff’s owner of the instant construction. However, it is difficult for Nonparty 2 to separately issue the Promissory note No. 3, which is the Plaintiff’s non-party 1 to whom the instant construction work was executed.

(3) In general, a person who makes an endorsement on a promissory note issued or transferred by another person shall be held liable only for the obligation arising out of the act of endorsement. In particular, the obligee shall be held liable to guarantee the obligation arising out of the act of endorsement only in cases where the endorsement was made to the effect that the obligee himself/herself guarantees the obligation that was the cause of the issuance or transfer of endorsement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5397, Aug. 26, 1994; 86Meu783, Jul. 22, 1986).

According to the above facts in this case, the defendant, as the owner of the construction in this case, is the owner of the construction in this case, and the non-party 2, who is the construction business operator, is dissatisfied with the shortage of the construction cost, prepared a custody certificate on behalf of the owner of the construction in this case and issued each of the promissory notes in this case to the non-party 2 so that the non-party 2 can use it as the construction cost. In conclusion, considering the circumstances leading up to the defendant's participation and degree of the construction in this case and other all the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant made an endorsement with the intent to assume responsibility even for the obligation of the construction cost that

Therefore, Defendant 1 also has the obligation to pay each amount such as the written order to the plaintiffs (the defendant is deemed to have guaranteed the payment of the construction cost on each payment date of the Promissory Notes in this case, and it is reasonable to see that the payment date is each due date).

3. Conclusion

Since it is reasonable to see the Defendants' obligations to the Plaintiffs as an indivisible obligation due to their nature, the Defendants' obligations to pay 50,00,000 won to each of them as 50,000 won per annum from January 31, 1994 to October 18, 1996, with 60% per annum under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act or the Commercial Act, and with 50,00 per annum from the following day to 9,000 won per annum from the 60,000 won per annum from the 96,000 won per annum from the 196,000 won to the 9,000 won per annum from the 196,000 won per annum from the day following the 196,000 won per annum from the 196,000 won to the 9,000 won per annum from the 196,000 won per annum from the 196,000 won per annum.

Judge Lee Sang-hoon