2015년도 어음법 관련 주요 판결의 평석

Abstract

This article analyzes and makes critical comments on the Supreme Court decisions in 2015 concerning note and checks. The research is focusing on the two representative cases; Supreme Court Case 2015.5.14. 2013da49152 and Supreme Court Case 2015.3.20. 2014da83647. The main issue of the case 2013da49152 was whether the party who have drawn a promissory note to guarantee the third party’s debt of the secured loan, is responsible of not only the debt written in the draft but also the suretyship obligation(Also known as ‘the hidden guarantee of note and check’). The basic principle of this issue is the interpretation of the concerned parties’ intent. Supreme court ruled that even if the defendant knew that the promissory note was drawn to guarantee the debt of the secured loan, without the special circumstances the defendant should not be entitled to the suretyship obligation. The Supreme Courts’ ruling is coherent to the general principle of interpretation of the concerned intent. The matter in question of case 2014da83647 was that when the promissory note is transferred by the way an obligation with a named obligee is transferred, the defense originated in the parties’ relationship should also be transferred to the transferee when the promissory note is transferred. The question is related to the issue of transference and severance of the defense originated in the parties’ relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that when a promissory note is transferred not by the endorsement but by the way an obligation with a named obligee is transferred, the drawer of bill cannot argue against transferee that the contract between drawer and drawee are repealed or nulled. The Supreme Courts’ rulings are coherent with the principle of the defense originated in the parties’ relationship and transference of the obligation with a named oblige. In conclusion the Supreme Courts’ decisions can be regarded as following the former judgement and consistent to the precedents.