In cases where a bill is issued to secure payment of underlying bonds and a bill is extinguished by prescription (negative), whether a right to claim reimbursement of benefit exists, and where a underlying claim is extinguished before the statute of limitations expires.

If a bill is issued in order to secure the payment of a claim in a causal relationship, even if the bill is extinguished due to the statute of limitations, the claim for reimbursement of benefit does not occur, and this is the same even if the claim in a causal relationship was extinguished due to separate causes, such as prescription, before the statute of limitations expires.

Article 79 of the Bills of Exchange

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

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 91Na3458 delivered on September 27, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If a bill is issued in order to secure the payment of a claim in a causal relationship, even if the bill is extinguished due to the statute of limitations, the claim for reimbursement of benefit does not occur, and this is the same even if the claim in a causal relationship was extinguished due to separate causes, such as prescription, before the statute of limitations expires.

In the same purport, the court below did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the Promissory Notes in this case was issued as a substitute for the payment of the payment of the price for the above high-price. Thus, the rights in the Promissory Notes in this case and the above claim for the payment of the price for the above high-price for the swine shall exist together, and the extinction of the prescription period on the Promissory Notes shall not be deemed to have obtained any benefit equivalent to the above amount of the face value of the Promissory Notes just because the defendant did not have obtained any benefit equivalent to the above amount of the face value, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)