[약속어음금][집27(2)민,253;공1979.10.15.(618),12159]
Loss of Right of Recourse
A promissory note shall lose its right to recourse against the person against whom the right to recourse is extinguished unless it is presented for payment by supplementing the column of the place of issue within the lawful period of time for presentment, as in the absence of the indication of the place of issue, and as in the absence of supplementation of the column of issue, it shall lose its right to recourse.
Article 53 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes
Supreme Court Decision 76Da214 Delivered on November 23, 1976
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
Defendant
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 79Na133 delivered on April 27, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 6 are examined.
Since the provisions of Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act stipulate the matters to be stated in a promissory note, it shall not take effect as a bill unless it is resolved by special provisions, so the right of recourse against the right of recourse against the right of recourse against the right of recourse shall be lost unless it is presented for payment in the place of payment or in the name of the issuer, even if the place of payment is stated in a promissory note, unless there is an indication of the place of payment or an indication of the place of payment stated in the name of the issuer, unless there is an indication of the place of issue or an indication of the place of payment stated in the name of the issuer, the right of recourse against the right of recourse against the right of recourse against the right of recourse against the party members (Supreme Court Decision 76Da214 delivered on Nov. 23, 76).
However, according to the court below's records, it is clear that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim in the same purport.
On the other hand, there are many precedents cited as arguments that the issue date should not be considered as the requirement of the bill, among the arguments that are inappropriate in this case, in the case of the bill to be issued on the fixed date, it may be considered as a legislative theory, but it may not be accepted as an interpretation theory of the current law that strongly demands the strictness of the bill.
Therefore, all arguments that the court below's decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the time of establishment of acts under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of legal principles as to default bills, requirements for bills and presentation of payment of bills, misunderstanding of legal principles as to exemption from preparation of protest, violation of Supreme Court precedents, and misunderstanding of legal principles as to special agreement for exemption from presentation of payment (it cannot be deemed that there is a special agreement for exemption from presentation of payment in this case) and that the supplement of blank bills
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)