2008년도 어음ㆍ手票에 관한 大法院判例의 動向과 分析

Abstract

This article examines and analyzes the Korean Supreme Court Judgements in 2008 about bill of exchange, note and checks. It investigates three cases. The first case treats the problem about the KODIT(Korea Credit Guarantee Fund)'s responsibility of the surety. In this case, the lending bank discounted a note, but it was verified that it was not a commercial note but an accommodation note. The previous decisions about the similar cases of the Supreme Court was that the KODIT had not the responsibility of the surety. In this case, the Supreme Court altered the previous opinion by the decision of the court en banc. But this article does not support the decision of the court en banc. The second case deals with the problem about the time for performance and the extinctive prescription of the obligations of the aval on the bill payable at sight. The aval has the nature of adhesion to the principal obligation and also the aval on the bill payable at sight has the same effect. Therefore, the starting point of reckoning about the time for performance and the extinctive prescription of the obligations on the bill payable at sight, begins through the legitimate presentation for payment to the principal obligator. The third case treats the problem about the practice of ‘the bill insurance' operated by KODIT. Among the services submitted by KODIT, credit insurance services can be divided into the bill insurance services and the credit insurance services. The bill insurance services which were a unique type of credit insurance introduced by KODIT in September 1997, based on the Special Measure for Supporting Small Enterprises. This case handles the insured risk and exceptions prescribed at the policy of bill insurance. This article agrees with the decision of the Supreme Court that the bank's refusal of payment against promissory note in this case, should be concluded that it could be applicable to the insured risk prescribed at the policy of bill insurance. Therefore, the insured and the insurer at the contract of bill insurance should be charged the insurance liability against the holder of bill.