Cases applicable to a bill of exchange and delivery exemption agreement

If the non-party Gap, who was the head office of the plaintiff company Gap, was instructed from the head office of the plaintiff company to secure the collateral against the non-party Eul and demanded it to the above Eul, but it was difficult for the defendant who was well aware of the property status of Eul to take the joint and several sureties, the above Gap promised that the defendant would refuse to take the joint and several sureties, and the above defendant would not claim the amount of bills or the price for the goods in fact as the joint and several sureties, and if the defendant trusted that the defendant signed and sealed it as the joint and several sureties, the above agreement is deemed to be the expression manager of the plaintiff company, and therefore the above promise constitutes the plaintiff's obligation exemption agreement against

Articles 428 and 506 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff Company

Defendant 1 and one other

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff the amount of 5,670,000 won with 6% per annum from January 1, 1984 to December 10, 1986 to the full payment rate of 25% per annum from December 11, 1986 to the plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution

1. Claim against Defendant 1;

On October 15, 1983, the plaintiff issued a promissory note with the non-party 1, the face value of 12,00,000 won, the payment date of which was made, Busan City/Do, the place of issue, and a promissory note with the plaintiff corporation's feed factory (hereinafter "the Promissory note in this case") as the holder of the above payment date, and argued that the plaintiff refused to pay the above payment at the above payment date. Thus, the No. 1 No. 2 No. 4 of this case, which correspond to the assertion that the defendant 1 signed and sealed the above Promissory Notes, cannot be considered as material for the above recognition, and the testimony by the non-party 2 of the witness alone, which was insufficient to acknowledge that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony was combined with the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's joint and several surety's purchase of the above amount can be found to be 10 to have been combined with the plaintiff 10 to 10 to bear.

2. Claim against the defendant 2

The fact that Defendant 2 affixed his name and affixed his seal to the bill of this case issued by Nonparty 1 as a joint guarantor is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the above Defendant.

As to the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the bill, the non-party 1 defense that the non-party 2, the head office of the branch office of the plaintiff company (name omitted) agreed not to claim the payment of the bill against the defendant. Thus, in addition to the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, the non-party 2, who was the head office of the plaintiff company (name omitted), ordered the non-party 1 to secure security equivalent to 12,000,000 won from the head office of the plaintiff company around October 1983 and demanded the non-party 1 to do so, but although the non-party 2, who was well aware of the financial status of the non-party 1, refused to request the joint and several surety, the non-party 2 would sign and seal the defendant as a joint and several surety, and actually believe that the non-party 2 promised not to claim the payment of the bill or the price of the goods, and therefore, the non-party 2's testimony against the non-party 2 cannot be deemed to constitute the counter-party 2's defense of this case.

3. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jin-young