2005/2006년도 어음·手票에 관한 大法院判例의 動向과 分析

Abstract

Comment on the Korean Supreme Court Judgements in 2005-2006 about Bill of Exchange, Note and Checks This article examines and analyzes the Korean Supreme Court Judgements in 2005-2006 about Bill of Exchange, Note and Checks. It investigates four cases. The first case is the problem about the practice of the bill clearing. The most part of the commercial paper is settled accounts by way of the bill clearing system at the Clearing House in Korea. It is demanded to follow the due process provided in Clearing House Regulation. In this case, the plaintiff had the procedural defect in the clearing procedure. Namely, he did not notify the dishonor of the note to the clearing house. But Supreme Court gave the decision that this situation was not significant, so this case was decided against the accused. The second case is the problem about the relation between the payment by promissory note for paying the insurance premium and the responsibility of a insurance company. The section 656 of Korean Commercial Code provides that the insurer undertake the responsibility from the time of the payment of the first premium, but if the special promise exists between the parties, it is not so. In this case, owing to breaking the promise from the fault of the plaintiff, the courts decided against the plaintiff. The third case is the problem about the relation between aval and the obligation of the Civil Law. The legal principle about this subject is that one who has taken an aval, does not have the responsibility based on the obligation at Korean Civil Law. But if the special promise exists between parties, it is not so. In this case, that promise was not existed. The fourth case is the problem about the relation between behaviour on the bill (Wechselerklärung) and section 108 of Korea Civil Code. As a matter of course, that section has to apply to the behaviour on the bill.