[1] The meaning of "when the holder has acquired the bill in bad faith or by gross negligence" under Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[2] In a case where a promissory note in blank is issued, whether the issuer should normally be deemed to limit the scope of its supplementary right (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that there is a bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the holder in acquiring an unfair complementary promissory note

[4] Whether the drawer is liable to the extent that the holder has granted his/her supplementary right, even if the holder has acquired a bill unfairly filled by bad faith or gross negligence (affirmative)

[1] "When the holder acquires a blank bill in bad faith" under Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act refers to the time when the holder acquires the bill with knowledge that the blank bill was improperly filled and that it would prejudice the debtor when acquiring it, and "when acquiring the bill due to gross negligence" refers to the time when the holder acquired the bill without such due care, although he could have known that the blank bill was improperly filled if he had paid due attention to it.

[2] Since a statement in the face value column of a bill is an important matter, it is reasonable to view that the drawer would normally limit the scope of its supplementary rights when a bill is issued in blank.

[3] The case holding that there is a bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the holder when acquiring an unfair supplementary promissory note

[4] If the holder has acquired a bill unfairly filled by bad faith or gross negligence, the drawer shall be bound by the bill as a matter of course to the extent that it has granted its effective supplementary right.

[1] Articles 10 and 77(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Articles 10 and 77(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [3] Articles 10 and 77(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [4] Articles 10 and 77(2) of the Bills of Exchange

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 77Da2020 decided Mar. 14, 1978 (Gong1978, 10730) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da10600 decided Jun. 30, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2569)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yellow Law et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Compact Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong- full, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na8904 delivered on July 10, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes which is applicable mutatis mutandis to a blank bill in accordance with the provisions of Article 77 (2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act shall not set up against the holder in violation of the bill of exchange unless the holder has accepted the bill of exchange in bad faith or by gross negligence."

Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes when the holder acquires a blank bill in bad faith refers to the time when the holder acquires the bill with knowledge that the blank bill was improperly filled, and that it would be prejudicial to the debtor if it was acquired, and "the time when the holder acquires the bill due to gross negligence" refers to the time when the holder acquires the blank bill without such due care despite the fact that the blank bill was improperly filled, if he had paid due attention to it, even though he was able to have known that it was improperly filled (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da10600 delivered on June 30, 1995).

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 판시 증거들을 종합하여 피고 회사의 자금사정이 어렵게 되자 피고 회사의 당시 대표이사이던 소외 1이 1995. 8.경 소외 2에게 금 10,000,000원 내지 금 20,000,000원 정도의 어음할인을 의뢰하면서 어음금액과 발행일, 지급기일, 수취인을 각 백지로 한 이 사건 약속어음 3장을 발행하고, 소외 2로 하여금 제3자로부터 할인할 돈을 받으면서 그 금액에 맞추어 이 사건 각 약속어음의 어음금액란을 보충하도록 한 사실, 소외 2는 그 약속어음 중 한 장에는 발행일 1995. 9. 12., 액면 금 105,000,000원, 지급기일 1995. 12. 18.로 기재하였다가 그 후 위 지급기일을 1996. 12. 18.로 고쳤고(이하 제1어음이라 한다), 다른 약속어음 한 장에는 발행일 1995. 10. 5., 액면 금 100,000,000원, 지급기일 1996. 12. 19.로 기재하고(이하 제2어음이라 한다), 나머지 약속어음 한 장에는 발행일 1995. 10. 5., 액면 금 100,000,000원, 지급기일 1995. 12. 26.로 기재하였다가 그 후 위 지급기일을 1996. 12. 26.로 고쳤는데(이하 제3어음이라 한다), 제1, 제3어음의 지급기일란의 연도가 고쳐졌음은 육안으로도 어느 정도 알아 볼 수 있는 사실, 소외 2는 피고를 위하여 이 사건 약속어음들을 할인하지 아니하고, 1995. 말 일자불상경 소외 2의 원고에 대한 기존 차용금 채무의 변제를 위하여 이 사건 약속어음들을 배서 양도하여 원고가 이를 소지하게 되었는데, 원고는 이를 양수하면서 피고에 대하여 이 사건 약속어음들이 유효하게 발행된 어음인지에 대하여 아무런 확인도 하지 아니한 사실, 소외 2는 '현미디어'라는 상호로 인쇄업을 하였는데, 한달 매출액이 금 20,000,000원 정도 되는 비교적 소규모의 업체였으며, 원고는 소외 2가 '현미디어'를 경영하기 이전에 같은 직장에서 약 20년간 함께 근무한 사실이 있어 소외 2와 서로 잘 알고 지내는 사이였고, 피고 회사는 이 사건 이전에도 소외 2에게 액면이 백지로 된 약속어음을 맡기면서 금 10,000,000원 내지 20,000,000원 정도의 어음할인을 부탁하여 소외 2가 원고에게 부탁하여 그 금액 정도의 할인을 하여 준 일이 있어서 원고도 피고 회사에 대하여 어느 정도 알고 있었던 사실 및 소외 2는 1995. 1.경부터 같은 해 10.경까지 원고로부터 수회에 걸쳐 비교적 많은 돈을 빌려 오다가 1996. 1. 22.경 '현미디어'가 부도가 난 후 해외로 도피한 사실 등을 인정하고, 그 인정 사실에 의하면 소외 2가 이 사건 각 백지어음의 액면금과 지급기일을 부당 보충한 것으로서 원고가 이 사건 약속어음들을 취득할 당시 그 금액이 거액이고, 3장을 동시에 취득하게 된 점, 이 사건 약속어음들에 기재된 지급기일이 그 각 발행일로부터 1년 이상의 긴 기간이었던 점, 원고가 조금만 주의를 기울였더라면 제1, 제3어음의 지급기일의 연도가 1995.에서 1996.으로 고쳐졌다는 것을 육안으로도 쉽게 알아차릴 수 있었던 점, 소외 2는 그 이전에 피고 회사 발행의 약속어음으로 원고로부터 금 10,000,000원 내지 금 20,000,000원 정도의 어음할인을 받은 사실이 있을 뿐 소외 2가 피고를 위하여 어음의 할인을 알선하는 이외에는 정상적인 어음 거래를 하지 아니하였다는 사실을 원고도 알고 있었던 점 및 소외 2는 이 사건 약속어음들의 양도 이전에 원고로부터 수회에 걸쳐 많은 돈을 차용하여 가는 등 자금사정이 어려웠고, 원고는 소외 2와 잘 아는 사이로서 소외 2의 자금사정, 사업규모 등에 대하여도 어느 정도 알고 있었던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고로서는 소외 2의 실질적인 무권리성을 의심하게 할 만한 사정을 알 수 있었다고 할 것이고, 반면 이 사건 약속어음들의 발행인인 피고 회사에 전화로 확인하는 행위가 어렵고 시간이 소요되는 것이 아닌 점에 비추어 볼 때 원고가 그와 같은 의심을 해소할 만한 상당한 조사를 하지 아니하고 이를 취득한 것은 중대한 과실이 있다고 하여야 할 것이므로 이 사건 각 백지어음은 소외 2에 의하여 부당 보충되었고, 원고는 악의 또는 중대한 과실로 이를 취득하였음을 지적하는 피고의 항변은 이유 있다고 판단하였다.

According to the records, as pointed out in the ground of appeal, the defendant stated in the legal brief dated May 27, 1997 that the defendant requested the non-party 2 to print books (the size of the request for printing is less than KRW 1,00,000 per month). However, on the ground that the defendant company requested the non-party 2 to arrange the discount of bills, there is no data to deem that the transaction of bills in the form of a bill in which the defendant bears the obligation on the bill against the non-party 2. Thus, the above fact-finding of the court below cannot be deemed to have recognized any fact different from the confession, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the non-party 2 in the above fact-finding of the court below.

On the other hand, since the statement in the face value column of a bill is very important, it is reasonable to view that the issuer would normally limit the scope of the right to supplement the bill if the bill is issued in blank (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da2020, Mar. 14, 1978). According to the records, the Plaintiff was aware that at the time of acquiring the Promissory Notes, the Promissory Notes was issued in blank and supplemented by Nonparty 2 (see Supreme Court Decision 20, Feb. 20, 2000; 200,000 won or more of the issuance of the Defendant Company, and in particular, the facts acknowledged by the lower court, despite the fact that Nonparty 2 did not know that the Plaintiff acquired the Promissory Notes from the Defendant Company and used it to supplement the amount of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could not be able to know the Plaintiff’s right to supplement the amount of the Promissory Notes at all without any doubt as to whether the Plaintiff acquired the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s right to supplement the amount of the Promissory Notes.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

However, even if the holder has acquired a bill which has been unjustly supplemented by bad faith or gross negligence, the drawer should be held liable for the bill as a matter of course within the limit of granting his valid supplementary right.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant company requested the non-party 2 to discount the amount of KRW 10,000,000 to KRW 20,000 and KRW 20,000 to KRW 20,00,000, and issued three copies of a promissory note, which is a blank note, and the non-party 2 received money at a discount from a third party, and made up for the column for the amount of each of the Promissory Notes in accordance with the above amount. Thus, the court below should further determine whether to accept the plaintiff's claim within the scope of the above legal principles by examining whether the defendant company granted non-party 2 a supplementary right. However, the court below's dismissal of all of the plaintiff's claim without examining the above point and dismissed the plaintiff's claim and the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the issuer's responsibility when it unfairly supplement

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)