(a) The endorsement of promissory notes and the responsibility to guarantee the underlying obligation;

(b) The case holding that even if an endorsement on a promissory note is made to supplement credit conditions, it shall not guarantee any civil cause obligation;

(a) A person who has become an endorser in a promissory note issued or endorsed and transferred by another person shall, in principle, bear only the obligation arising from the endorsement, and shall bear the responsibility to guarantee the obligation arising therefrom only if he/she has endorsed to the obligee that he/she will guarantee, even the obligation that was the cause of such issuance or transfer;

B. The case holding that even if Gap endorsements on a promissory note delivered by Eul to Byung for the purpose of supplementing the credit standing of Eul, it is nothing more than giving credit by bearing an obligation under a bill as an endorser, unless there is any evidence suggesting that Gap otherwise endorsed it to guarantee a civil cause obligation.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da17457 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 557) and Supreme Court Decision 93Da23456 delivered on November 23, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 177)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Defendant Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na3392 delivered on December 22, 1993

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff, a merchant who sells a pre-market for the pre-market with the trade name of the pre-marketed paper with macroscopic evidence, sold the pre-marketed paper to the non-party 1 who manufactured and sold the pre-marketed paper from January 25, 1992, and received a pre-marketed bill from the above non-party 1. The above non-party 1's husband and the employees responsible for the above new packaging industry, made the above non-party 2 or the above non-party 1's husband's consignee, endorsement of the pre-marketed bill from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's pre-party 1's new bill.

2. However, in principle, a person who has become an endorser in a promissory note issued or transferred by another person shall be liable only for the obligation arising from the endorsement. In particular, it shall be held liable for the guarantee of the obligation arising therefrom only in the case of endorsement made by him to the obligee to guarantee the obligation arising from the issuance or transfer of endorsement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Meu979, Feb. 14, 1984; 87Meu105, Dec. 8, 1987; 92Da17457, Dec. 22, 1992; 92Da17457, Dec. 22, 1992). Even if it was endorsed by the Defendant to the Promissory note in this case that was delivered by the said Nonparty 1 to the Plaintiff for the payment of the purchase price, it shall not be deemed that the Defendant has any civil obligation to guarantee the obligation arising from the endorsement as an endorser.

In the end, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability of the endorser of a promissory note.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)