[약속어음금,약속어음반환등(참가)][공1994.10.15.(978),2614]
Effect of a Promissory Notes not written on the issue date of the Note
Since the issue date of a promissory note is one of the requirements for a promissory note, rights under a promissory note cannot be duly established unless it is indicated therein, and therefore, it cannot be a legitimate presentation even if it is presented for payment due to such failure to complete notes, and if the blank portion is not supplemented even by the date of the closing of the fact-finding proceedings, the holder of the promissory note cannot be deemed to have the claim against the drawer that reaches the due date
Articles 75 and 77 (Article 38) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act
Supreme Court Decision 79Da1189 delivered on August 14, 1979 (Gong1979, 12159) (Gong1207 delivered on August 9, 198) 91Da24724 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3237)
Plaintiff
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 93Na12616, 12623 delivered on January 13, 1994
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Since the date of issuance of a promissory note is one of the requirements for a promissory note (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da1189, Aug. 14, 1979), rights on a promissory note cannot be duly established unless the said note is indicated, and therefore, it cannot be a lawful presentation for payment even if a bill is presented for payment with such a complete bill (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da24724, Oct. 27, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1858, Aug. 9, 198; etc.). If the blank portion is not filled by the date of the closure of the fact-finding proceedings, the holder of the promissorysory note cannot be deemed to have a claim against the drawer that reaches the due date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 73Da1922, Jul. 26, 197
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the law, and violation of the Supreme Court precedents. All arguments are 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 on the bench.
Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)