Defenses in bad faith against the acquisitor of the financing bill issued in exchange for consideration

If one of the promissory notes is refused to pay, the acquisition of a promissory note in bad faith against the acquisitor of a financed bill exchanged under a special agreement that the other party does not pay the promissory note, is insufficient only by the fact that the other party knew of the existence of such special agreement, and the other party knowingly acquired it, even if the other party knew of the fact that the other party’s promissory note would be refusing to pay or refusing to pay. The submission should be made.

Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange

Mutual Savings and Finance Company

Construction Co., Ltd.

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15 million won with an annual interest rate of 6 percent from February 29, 1988 to July 8 of the same year, and the interest rate of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings as to evidence Nos. 1-1, 2 (B/L surface of the Promissory Notes and back) without dispute over each establishment, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above amount of the Promissory Notes and interest or delay damages to the Plaintiff presumed to be a lawful holder of the said Promissory Notes, barring any special circumstance, to the Plaintiff, as the bearer of the said Promissory Notes on Nov. 20, 1987, respectively, at the face value of KRW 15,000,000 issued by the Defendant on Nov. 20, 1987, and at the face of February 28, 1988.

The defendant is a financing bill issued solely on the part of the non-party 1's own financing intent. The plaintiff acquired a discount of a financing bill by failing to perform the duty prescribed in the Commercial Discount and Re-Payment Regulation established by the Monetary Board Operating Committee to prevent such discount of a financing bill. Thus, it is a malicious purchaser of a financing bill. Thus, even if the plaintiff acquired a financing bill in bad faith in violation of the above treatment provision, the defendant cannot set up against the plaintiff who acquired the financing bill only by the defense that it is a financing bill. Therefore, the above defense cannot be justified.

In addition, the defendant also issued the Promissory Notes in exchange for the defendant's face value of 15,00,000, and the date of issuance on February 23, 1987, when the Promissory Notes are issued with each other, the defendant and the defendant were aware that there was a special agreement under which the defendant will not pay the Promissory Notes if the Promissory Notes are issued with each other, and that there was a special agreement under which the defendant and the defendant would not pay the Promissory Notes if the Promissory Notes were issued with each other, the plaintiff acquired the Promissory Notes in exchange for the defendant's personal defense so that the plaintiff would be the bad faith acquisitor who would be able to oppose the former. The above Promissory Notes's refusal to pay the Promissory Notes could not comply with the plaintiff's claim. Thus, as alleged by the defendant, both parties would be unable to accept the payment of the Promissory Notes in exchange for the Promissory Notes in exchange for the same as the defendant's assertion, and it could not be asserted that the purchaser of the Promissory Notes in bad faith would not be aware that it was not acquired.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the interest at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from February 29, 1988 to July 8, 1988, which is obvious on the record that the plaintiff's claim is from February 29, 198 to the date of delivery of the bill of this case, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum as stipulated in the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking this payment is justified, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who has lost

Judges Kang Yong-sung