[약속어음금][집15(3)민,069]
The validity of the issuance of promissory notes not indicated in the place of issue
One of the matters stipulated in Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act shall not take effect as a bill unless it is expressly stated.
§ 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, section 76(4) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes
Plaintiff
Defendant
Daegu District Court Decision 66Na468 delivered on May 18, 1967
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are determined.
In accordance with Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, matters to be stated in a promissory note shall be legally, and even one of them shall not be effective unless otherwise stipulated by special provisions. According to the reasoning of the original judgment, this case's Promissory Notes (Evidence A (Evidence A) shall not include the necessary issue date under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and shall not include any additional entry in the name of the issuer. Thus, this case's Promissory Notes shall be invalid in accordance with Article 76 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, because the requirements for the Promissory Notes are defective and shall not have the effect as a promissory Notes. The judgment is just, and the issue shall be based on the mistake of the issuer, such as a theory of lawsuit, and the signature and seal of the issuer, the place of payment, and the place of payment, and this case's Promissory Notes shall be considered as a valid bill.
Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Kimchi-bre (Presiding Justice) Dog-gu