Whether the holder of a promissory note may be liable to the endorser for any loss caused by the drawer’s refusal of payment due to the lapse of the time limit for presentment, on account of the existence of an employee of the endorser.

The holder of a promissory note, even if the holder suffered losses due to non-payment refusal by the drawer due to the expiration of the time limit for presentment for payment, loses his right of recourse against the endorser, etc. in accordance with the provisions of Article 77(1)4 and Article 53(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, so the damages cannot be liable to the endorser, because there is no causal link with the act of the employee

Articles 77(1) and 53(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Articles 756 and 393 of the Civil Act

Attorney Han-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant

Jinyang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Jong-soo et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 73Na351 delivered on April 25, 1974

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant-appellant Kim Jong-soo's ground of appeal No. 1 and 2 and the first ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below issued the Promissory Notes in this case where Non-Party 1 had been paid at par value 2,00,000,000 won and the place of payment as Yang-gun Agricultural Cooperatives. The non-party 1, the principal of the receipt and disbursement of the defendant company, who conspired with Non-party 2 and had the above non-party 2, illegally used the official seal of the representative director of the defendant company's company's company to the endorser column of this Promissory Notes which he had been held by the above non-party 2. The defendant company forged the portion of this Promissory Notes properly endorsed and delivered it to the above non-party 2, and the non-party 2 again endorsed the Promissory Notes and delivered it to the plaintiff without knowledge of such circumstance. The plaintiff presented a presentation for payment to the above Partnership on April 22, 1972, but the act of the non-party 1 constitutes the scope of the defendant company's duty of forgery and thus, the defendant company did not present the causation between the plaintiff and the defendant company's employee.

However, the reasoning of the judgment below alone does not clearly state what benefits the plaintiff could have been infringed on by endorsement at the original time of the above non-party 1. However, if the above non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's refusal to pay the above non-party 1's compensation, if it would cause the plaintiff's losses to the defendant company, who is the endorser, as the holder of the above non-party 1. The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff presented the above non-party 1's presentation for payment to the above agricultural cooperative only on April 22, 1972, which was the due date of the above non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the non-party 1's payment of the above non-party 1's payment of the above non-party 1's payment of the damages.

In this respect, since the original judgment cannot be maintained, the original judgment shall be reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the original judgment shall be reversed, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in order to make the original judgment new trial and judgment.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)