[약속어음금][공2008하,1789]
In a case where a bearer of a blank bill loses the blank portion by the date of closing argument in the claim for a bill of exchange, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, whether the holder may again claim the same amount against the Defendant of the previous suit based on the bill completed by exercising the right to supplement the blank (negative
In a case where the holder of a promissory note filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of the promissory note (hereinafter referred to as “pre-appeal”) on the basis of the so-called blank note which partially defective requirements for the bill, but the above judgment was rendered and the judgment was finalized on the ground of the defect in the requirements for the bill, and then again filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of the bill against the defendant of the pre-trial suit (hereinafter referred to as “pre-trial suit”), even if the plaintiff either erred in part of the requirements for the bill in the pre-trial suit or did not know of the defect, the subject matter of a lawsuit is the same as the previous suit, even though the plaintiff did not know of the defect, and the subject matter of a lawsuit is for the same purpose as the existence of the same right or legal relationship. Furthermore, res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment extends to any attack and defense method in a lawsuit between the same parties before the closing of pleadings. Thus, since the holder of a pre-trial suit could claim the payment of the amount by exercising the right to fill in blank by the date of the closing of pleadings, and the aforementioned claim is not allowed.
Articles 146, 216(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 10, 75, and 77(2) of the Bills Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-
Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gwangju, Attorneys Lee Hy-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant corporation
Incheon District Court Decision 2007Na17192 Decided July 11, 2008
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In a case where the holder of a promissory note filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of the promissory note (hereinafter “pre-appeal”) on the basis of the so-called blank note which partially deficits the requirements for the bill, but the above judgment was rendered and subsequently dismissed on the ground of the defects in the requirements for the bill, and subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of the promissory note against the defendant of the previous suit (hereinafter “pre-appeal”), even though the plaintiff did not know of some of the requirements for the bill in the previous suit, the previous suit and the subsequent suit are the same for the purpose of the existence of the same right or legal relations, and thus the subject matter of lawsuit is deemed the same. The res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment extends to any attack and defense method in a lawsuit between the same parties (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da24847, 24854, Oct. 27, 1992). In a case where the holder of a promissory note exercised the right to fill the blank note by the date of closing argument, and thus, the judgment against the defendant's previous suit cannot be accepted for the same reason.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trial scope of res judicata or the legal nature of the right to supplement blanks, Article 1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, or the identity of a subject matter of lawsuit,
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.
Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)