In a commercial bill loan, the validity of the basic obligation in case the debtor provides a new bill to the creditor in lieu of a bill, the due date for which the bill became due.

In a commercial bill loan, the validity of the basic obligation provided to the creditor in lieu of a bill for which the debtor has due date for payment of the bill.

Article 466 of the Civil Act, Article 504 of the Civil Act

Kim Jong-hee

The Bank for interest;

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2847 delivered on March 29, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 was examined by the first instance court, and each evidence cited by the original judgment was examined by the records, the facts admitted by the original judgment can be recognized. The lower court acknowledged facts by the classified evidence, or did not find any errors by logical rules or rule of experience in the preparation of evidence and fact-finding. Thus, the argument is groundless as it criticizes the lower court’s evidence preparation and fact-finding, which are all the matters of the exclusive authority of the lower court, on the premise of the independent value judgment of evidence and evidence rejected by the lower court.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

According to evidence, the original judgment recognized that the loan obligation of the non-party to the defendant bank was KRW 1,296,50 as of February 20, 1963 when the plaintiff notified the defendant bank of the contract to establish the right to collateral security and the contract to terminate the contract. The non-party and the defendant bank received a partial repayment of the loan and a new bill at the due date of each secured bill, such as Won, and the balance was KRW 952,500,00 at the time of the due date of each secured bill, delayed payment of the loan, and the over-paid balance was KRW 496,70,00 at the time of the termination of the above contract. Since the loan of the bank was a commercial bill, it cannot be deemed that the loan of the bank was merely a cause for commercial bill, and since the commercial bill was merely an economic bill, it cannot be viewed that there was no special circumstance that the debtor provided a new bill as security, the original judgment did not err in interpreting the loan and maintaining its payment of the outstanding bill.

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

Justices Cho Woo-hwan (Presiding Justice)