[2] Method of a corporation’s bill of exchange

[3] In a case where the head of a bank affixes a name plate on the part of the endorser of a promissory note which is a bank and the head of a bank affixes his own private person without omitting his/her name, whether it can be deemed an effective endorsement (negative)

[2] In light of the nature of the written statement and words of the act of bill, whether the act of bill by a juristic person is a representative of the juristic person or an agent on the face of the bill, and the name and seal of the representative on the face of the bill should be done by an agent of the juristic person who has the authority to write the bill in the name of the representative of the juristic person and directly

[3] In case where the head of a bank has endorsed in the column for endorser of a promissory note, which is a bank, by affixing the name and address of the branch and the name of the branch, and affixing his private seal without affixing his/her name, the endorsement is invalid due to the omission of the name and name of the agent who is the actor, and thus, the series of endorsements is defective.

1. Summary of the judgment below

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence.

(1) On October 30, 1992, the Defendant issued two copies of Promissory Notes with the face value of KRW 10 billion (the number: 0496324 of the Promissory Notes) and five billion in face value (the face value: : 0496325 of the Promissory Notes) to secure the obligation by obtaining loans of KRW 30 billion from the branch of the Intervenor bank, each of which was issued on October 30, 1992, and issued on October 30, 1992, each of which was issued, and delivered to the branch under the guarantee of the Promissory Notes, each of which was signed on October 30, 1992, with the seal of the person in charge of the payment, affixed a seal on each of the marks.

(2) At the time, Nonparty 1, a branch office, using the fact that the certificate of deposit sold to the Incheon Investment Finance Corporation, etc. (C.D.: hereinafter “C.D”) was kept without delivering the real goods of the certificate of deposit (C.D.) and sold it twice to the securities arranged by the Plaintiff, and had the Plaintiff make an irregular transaction by personally using the price, etc., and was subject to severe financial pressure to pay the c.D., at maturity, Nonparty 1 discounted a promissory note borrowed from the Scar Steel Co., Ltd., which was usual traded to raise the funds to the Plaintiff. On November 3, 1992, Nonparty 1, the employees of the branch office, Kim Young-young, who was in charge of the affairs of the branch office, instructed the Plaintiff to present the bills in lot shopping, bring them back, make it possible to bring them back, and receive them from the Plaintiff by demanding four copies, such as the 1, 2, etc. of this case.

(3) On November 5, 1992, Nonparty 1 discounted the bill No. 1 of this case at the discount rate of 2% per month, and stated in the first endorsement column as "the date of endorsement" on November 5, 1992, and marked as "branch of the Korean Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. 33-2 in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City", the name of Non-party 1 affixed a name tag, affixed the name of Non-party 1, and issued it with the private seal affixed, and received a discount of KRW 4.85 million per annum from the plaintiff from the same date to the 13th day of the same month.

(4) In the course of Nonparty 1’s sale of KRW 1 billion issued at a branch office on November 14, 1992 to the Plaintiff’s brokerage, but the issuance was revoked and re-purchaseed on behalf of the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1, who was aware of the double selling of cdys, was forced to seek reimbursement of KRW 5 billion at the face value of the issuance of the shot Steel Co., Ltd. at the discount of October 30, 1992 and KRW 1 bill of this case. Nonparty 1 endorsed the bill of this case in a manner of omitting the name as stated in the bill of this case and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

B. Based on the above facts, the lower court maintained the first instance judgment which dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim (the instant second bill claim) for the following reasons, and dismissed the conjunctive claim added by the lower court (the instant first bill claim).

6. The Plaintiff’s endorsement of the First and Second Bills is null and void because it constitutes an endorsement without the name of the natural person who is the representative of the Intervenor’s bank. Thus, the Plaintiff did not acquire the First and Second Bills of this case. Although it is not so, Nonparty 1 was arbitrarily useful for the First and Second Bills of this case. Nonparty 1 was involved in the personal financing transaction of the Plaintiff through the offering of scardy sale and the discount of bills. ② Nonparty 1 discounted the First Bills of this case’s acquisition of the First Bills of this case’s bills of this case’s bills of this case’s scardy, etc., i.e., the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the First and Second Bills of this case’s bills of this case’s 1 bill of this case’s bill of this case’s bill of this case’s discount, unlike commercial bills of this case’s sale, and the Plaintiff’s claim for discount of this case’s bill of this case’s bill of this case’s bill of this case’s 1 bill of this case’s bill of this case’s bill of this case’s discount.

2. Determination

The continuous endorsement of a bill is required to exist in form and in form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da33156, Jun. 9, 195). Therefore, only if the endorsement satisfies all the requirements for endorsement is a valid endorsement, the right in the bill is legally transferred, and if the endorsement does not meet the requirements for endorsement, the right in the bill can not be legally transferred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da4393, Dec. 20, 1996). In light of the written character and text of the act of the bill, the act of the juristic person must be done by an agent of the juristic person, who is the representative or representative of the juristic person, indicated on the face of the bill as the representative or representative of the juristic person, and signed in the name of the juristic person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da4393, Apr. 14, 1987).

In this case, Nonparty 1’s endorsement of the bill Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is invalid because the name of the agent, who is the actor, is omitted, and it does not meet the requirements, so the series of endorsement is defective. Therefore, unless the plaintiff asserts and proves the actual transfer of rights, he/she cannot exercise his/her rights in the bill No. 1 and 2 of this case.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the series of endorsements, and thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal as to this point is not acceptable, and the remaining grounds of appeal are pertaining to the additional judgment of the court below on the premise that the series of endorsements 1 and 2 of this case is continuous, and there is no further defect in the series of endorsements 1 and 2 of this case. Therefore, it is without merit

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)