어음할인을 위한 융통어음의 양도와 이중무권의 항변 - 대법원 2012. 11. 15. 선고 2012다60015 판결

Abstract

This case handles an accomodation bill for the purpose of discounting abill. In this case, although the occupant had not given the amount fordiscount to his endorser, he required a bill amount to the issuer. But theissuer rejected the claim. So called an accomodation bill means the bill drawn by one person foranother without consideration to enable that other to raise money or obtaincredit thereby. An accommodation bill guarantees that the money lent willbe repaid by the accommodation party on the date specified in the bill ifthe accommodated party fails to repay it. When an issuer has signed the accomodation bill, as a general rule, theaccommodation party has to be liable to the occupant. Because he is notthe mala fide bearer of Article 17. the Law of Bills, even though he knowsthe fact that the bill is an accomodation bill. Therefore, an accommodationparty can not raise a claim to the occupant on the basis that the bill is anaccomodation bill. But if circumstances require, an accommodation party has the chances toraise claim to the occupant. That circumstances is occurred in the cases byso called the violation of an accommodation contract and Doppelmangel. For example, Doppelmangel case arises where, although A issued a bill toB and B endorsed it to C, A’s debt against B has been paid off and B hasalso paid off the underlying debt against C. In this circumstance, the issuerof that accomodation bill can raise a claim to the occupant by so calledDoppelmangel defense. I think the case in the this paper comes also underthe circumstance that Doppelmangel defense can be applicable. Inconclusion, I’d like to say that the court’s decision in this case is rational.