[약속어음금청구사건][고집1948민,390]
Transfer of the right to supplement blank bills
When there has been entry into a blank bill, the right to fill the blank bill shall be transferred along with the bill, and a person who has acquired the blank bill shall obtain the right to fill it as a matter of law.
Article 10 of the Criminal Code (Law No. 20)
[Plaintiff-Appellant] 113 decided Jul. 21, 1960 (Law No. 10113 decided Jul. 21, 1960; Law No. 627 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes; Law No. 6032 decided Feb. 2, 199
Plaintiff
Masan Industries Ltd.
This case is dismissed.
Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant attorney shall revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim shall be assessed against the plaintiff through the first and second trials, and the plaintiff's attorney shall seek a judgment in the original judgment.
On January 2, 4291, the Plaintiff, as the cause of its claim, submitted to the Plaintiff a short-term of 18 million Won to be issued by the Defendant on January 31, 4291, the short-term payment date of 18 million Won, and the Plaintiff, as the holder of a promissorysory note, which became the Defendant at the place of payment, requested the Plaintiff to make payment on the date of payment, but the Plaintiff refused to make payment on the date of 180,000 U.S. dollars to the Defendant, which is the next day from February 1, 4291 to the next day of payment. The Plaintiff, as the bearer of the U.S. 1, stated the so-called statement to the Plaintiff in this Article for the purpose of seeking payment at the rate of 6% per annum of the U.S. bill to the Defendant’s 2000 U.S. bonds issued to the Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s employer, and thus, the Plaintiff received a loan from the Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s employer.
The defendant's legal representative did not issue a promissory note with the plaintiff head and the non-party 1. However, the defendant issued a blank promissory note with the name and seal of the non-party 3 on the date of the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's head of the defendant's head of the non-party 4. However, on June 18, 290, the defendant agreed to sell 30 percent of the price to the non-party 180,000 won, and the defendant issued a certificate of delivery to the non-party 4 at the time of the defendant's purchase of the non-party's head of the non-party's head of the non-party's head of the non-party's head of the non-party's head of the non-party's head of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's head of the non-party's head of the non-party's head of the non-party's head of the non-party's head of the non-party's head of the non-party 4.
Since there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 who will be presumed to have been bound to pay the original bill, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 will be bound to pay the original bill at the time of the issuance of the original bill, and that the non-party 4 will not be entitled to pay the original bill at the time of the issuance of the original bill, because the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 will not be entitled to pay the original bill at the time of the issuance of the original bill, and that the defendant will not be entitled to pay the original bill at the time of the issuance of the original bill at the time of the non-party 4 and the non-party 4's assertion that the new bill would be invalid, because the non-party 1 will not be entitled to pay the original bill at the time of the issuance of the original bill at the time of the original bill, and that the defendant will not be entitled to pay the original bill at the time of the issuance of the original bill at the time of the original bill.
Judges Cho Chang-seop (Presiding Judge)