(a) The assertion that there was no legitimate presentation of payment and burden of proof in the event that the endorser of a promissory note has exempted the preparation of a protest for non-payment;

(b) The scope of the above collateral guarantee when the same person makes a collateral guarantee and has pledged to secure another's property to secure another's property and establishes a mortgage on the real estate owned by him/her;

A. In the event that an endorser of a promissory note has exempted the preparation of a protest for non-payment, the holder is presumed to have presented payment to the drawer within the statutory period to exercise his right of recourse, so the fact that there was no such lawful presentation has the assertion and burden of proof to the person who invoked the presentment.

B. In the event that the same person has guaranteed a so-called collateral guarantee that guarantees an unspecified debt that will occur in the future from the continuous credit transaction relationship of another person, and as a surety to secure another person's property to secure a collateral and registered the creation of a mortgage on the property owned by him/her, whether the scope of the said collateral guarantee is limited to the maximum debt amount within the scope of the said maximum debt amount shall be determined according to the intention of the contracting parties in each specific case. In such a case, it cannot be readily concluded that

(a) Articles 77 and 46 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Articles 357 and 428 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 63Da1171 delivered on June 23, 1964, Supreme Court Decision 68Da1182 delivered on March 31, 1969

Samyang Food Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 84Na1140 delivered on November 9, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's above claim on July 20, 1971. The court below held that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff lawfully issued and endorsed the Promissory Notes of this case and confirmed the fact that the plaintiff is the lawful holder and sought payment of KRW 8,200,000 among the above Promissory Notes against the defendant, who is the endorser, based on the right of recourse to the above Promissory Notes, the plaintiff presented the above Promissory Notes to the drawer on July 20, 1971. However, if the endorser of the Promissory Notes is exempted from the preparation of a protest, the holder is presumed to have presented the Promissory Notes to the drawer within the statutory period to exercise the right of recourse, and therefore the plaintiff has the assertion and burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da1171, Jun. 23, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 68Da1182, Mar. 18, 1969).

In light of the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2 (Pledge) adopted by the court below, since it is clear that the defendant is exempted from drawing up a protest for non-payment in the course of endorsement and transfer of the above bill, the plaintiff, who is the holder of the bill, shall be presumed to have lawfully presented the bill to the non-party 1, the drawer within the statutory period in order to exercise the right of recourse. The court below's decision that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for recourse on the premise that there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff presented the bill within the statutory period, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the burden of proof, and therefore, the argument for

2. The court below's decision that the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 are limited to the non-party 1's collateral security business, and if the non-party 2 were to manage the non-party 1's collateral security business within the jurisdiction of Yellow land, and the above non-party 2 concluded an agency contract with the plaintiff to secure the future goods price obligations, they shall be the debtor and the non-party 2's creditor and the non-party 1 shall be limited to 4,900 won which are the value of the above real estate. The above non-party 1 shall be deemed to have completed the registration of establishment of the non-party 4's collateral security interest within the limit of 0's face value with the non-party 1's collateral security interest, and the defendant shall be deemed to have agreed that the above non-party 2's collateral security interest shall be limited to the above non-party 1's collateral security interest and shall be limited to the above non-party 1's collateral security interest for the non-party 3's collateral security interest interest.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate division of the Seoul Northern District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)