2014년도 어음법 관련 주요 판례의 평석

Abstract

This article analyzes and makes critical comments on the supreme court cases in 2014 concerning Bill of Exchange, Note and Checks. The research sets its focus on the two representative case; Supreme Court Case 2011da101599 and Supreme Court Case 2014da13167. In the 2011da101599 Case Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs claim which was demanding the insurance in accordance with the terms and conditions in the contract, based on the decision that the accident and risk written in the contract did not occur within the policy period. Supreme Court ruled that when a promissory note is transferred as a conditional payment of an obligation on the underlying transaction, the obligatory right with the promissory note must be claimed prior to the obligatory right on the underlying transaction. The Court also confirmed when the maturity of promissory note is set after the due date of performance of obligation on the underlying transaction, the due date of the performance becomes postponed until the maturity set in the promissory note. In addition to the decision the Court also ruled that to claim the bill payment in performance bond insurance the conditions and terms must be met within the policy period. The Courts ruling in this case is well concluded since the default of an obligation of the debtor, which is the accident and risk covered by the guaranty insurance for the performance of a duty occurred after the policy period. In the Supreme Court Case 2014da13167 when the note holder presented the cover note and claimed its payment without filling out the drawee the proposal does not meet the required performance for proper proposal and although the claim is rejected due to the lack of deposits the refusal does not result default of an obligation of the note publisher. In result the Court rejected plaintiffs claim that were demanding the damages occurred after the refusal of the bill payment request, due to the inappropriate proposal. The Courts ruling coincides with the legal nature of a cover note since a cover note must be regulated as a promissory note not a certificate of deposit. When the cover note is published with incomplete instruments the note should be regulated as blank promissory note. The court decision is well conducted because the proposal of incomplete cover note does not fulfill the required performance of proposal and its refusal does not result default of the obligation of publisher.