If a blank bill is presented without filling in blank, the obligor shall not be liable for the delay of performance.

If a blank bill is presented without filling in blank, the obligor shall not be liable for the delay of performance.

Article 14 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na344 delivered on November 27, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na344 delivered on July 27, 1969

(1) Of the part against the Defendant in the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant to pay 200,000 won an annual amount of 6% from February 25, 1969 to the full payment system is reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil & Security District Court.

(2) The defendant's remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed, and the costs of appeal against this are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

The lower court recognized the fact that the Plaintiff exercised its right to supplement against the Promissory Notes in the instant case as a legitimate holder. Such fact-finding by the lower court is justifiable. Even if the Plaintiff voluntarily cancelled the endorsement portion of the Promissory Notes and cancelled it once, there is no reason to deem that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Promissory Notes in the instant case does not go through the lawful distribution process. The lower court is justifiable in that the Plaintiff is a legitimate holder of the said Promissory Notes, and there is no reason to deem that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts due to insufficient deliberation and misunderstanding of facts, as alleged in the arguments. The argument is groundless.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

The lower court determined as follows with respect to interest on delay in the claim of this case. In other words, the Defendant paid interest at the rate of 6% per annum from February 25, 1969 to the full payment rate of the principal. However, at the time of the Plaintiff’s presentation of the said bill, there was a so-called blank bill in which no person is entitled to receive payment on the bill at the time of the presentation of the said bill, and the Plaintiff supplemented his name after the filing of the subsequent suit in light of the facts acknowledged by the former part of the lower judgment. Since it cannot be deemed that the obligor was at the time of presentation of the blank bill, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine as to delay in the performance of the obligation of the bill. The argument on this point is groundless.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)