beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note with face value of KRW 55,000,000 at face value, issue date and recipient blanks, and due date September 6, 2014, and a promissory note with a new bank at the place of payment and the place of payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).
B. At the time when the Plaintiff received the Promissory Notes from the non-party company, the non-party company made a blank endorsement in the column of the first endorsement with the Defendant’s blank impression, and the second endorsement column was the same as the non-party company made a blank endorsement.
C. The Plaintiff’s endorsement of the Promissory Notes in blank on the third endorsement column without filling the payee and the issue date, and then delivered them to Switzerland, which was presented to the payment bank on the payment date, but the Plaintiff refused to pay the Promissory Notes due to the shortage of deposit.
The addressee and the issue date of the Promissory Notes in this case are not supplemented as of the date of closing the argument.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim for the amount of a bill
A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the assertion is an endorser, who is the final holder of the Promissory Notes in this case, and is obligated to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes and its delay
B. In order for the holder of a promissory note to exercise his right of recourse against the endorser, it is required that the holder of the promissory note, in order to exercise his right of recourse, make a lawful presentation of payment by a promissory note stating the legal particulars as stipulated in Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, but refuses to make payment. The presentment of payment by a promissory note stating some of the above mentioned items, shall not be effective as a lawful presentation of payment unless the relief is made under
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 28, 2013