(a) Method of exercising rights under the bill where the bill is cut in the form of endorsement;

(b) In cases where an endorsement is made in the name of a legal entity, the name of which is the representative after the endorsement of the personal name, the case affirming the substantial series of endorsements;

(a) The series of endorsements in a bill must exist in the form and be sufficient and exist in the form. However, in the case where the series of endorsements in the form is cut down, the exercise of rights on the bill by the holder who proves that he has a substantial relationship with regard to the suspended part is legitimate.

(b) In a case where an endorsement was made in the name of a juristic person as its representative after the endorsement of the personal name, the case recognizing the substantial series of endorsements of the endorsement.

Articles 16(1) and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 69Da995 delivered on December 9, 1969 (No. 134 delivered on June 22, 1973) 72Da2026 delivered on June 22, 1973 (No. 94Da33156 delivered on June 9, 195) (Gong195Ha, 2375)

Plaintiff

Defendant Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na17115 delivered on December 8, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The continuous series of endorsement in a bill is required to exist in form and exist in form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da33156, Jun. 9, 195). However, in a case where the series of endorsement in form is cut, the exercise of rights on a bill by a holder who proves that he/she has a substantial relationship with respect to the suspended part in a remote method is legitimate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 69Da995, Dec. 9, 1969).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. The court below held that each of the promissory notes of this case used the name of the defendant or the non-party as "the defendant" or "the non-party representative director of the non-party" or "the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party" or "the non-party of the non-party of the non-party" or "the non-party of the non-party of the non-party" or "the non-party of the non-party of the non-party" or "the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party's company of the non-party of the non-party's company of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party of the non-party" or the non-party of the non-party.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant is not liable as an endorser since the endorsement in the name of the defendant was forged by the above non-party, and therefore the defendant is not liable as an endorser. In light of the fact that the non-party whose act of a bill was prohibited as a financial regulation, the defendant made business registration in his name and permitted business, and the defendant made a report of business closure on August of the same year on the part of the non-party, and paid taxes close to the district tax office having jurisdiction over the above post office, such as the non-payment of each of the promissory notes in this case, etc., and the fact that the defendant is the non-party, the defendant can be recognized as being entitled to grant the non-party the right to act a bill in the name of the defendant when business necessary, and the above endorsement in the name of the non-party was legally made by granting the authority of the non-party to act the bill in the name of the defendant. In light of the records, the court below's determination and judgment are reasonable, and there were no errors in

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)