[1] Method of interpreting the contents of the bill

[2] The case holding that in case where Party A’s holder of a promissory note affixed his signature and seal on the bill as an endorser and indicated Party B as an endorsee, the above endorsement shall be deemed to be a registered endorsement made by Party B, and since Party B’s lawful endorsement followed the above endorsement cannot be presumed to be a lawful holder of the bill, since Party B’s acquisition of the bill without any lawful endorsement cannot be presumed to be a lawful holder of the bill, and the right under the bill cannot be deemed to have been substantially transferred from Party B to Party B by the above endorsement

[1] The contents of the bill shall be objectively interpreted in accordance with the statement on the bill, and it shall not be interpreted in a way that changes the statement on the bill according to circumstances other than the bill.

[2] The case holding that in case where Party A’s holder of a promissory note affixed his signature and seal on the bill as an endorser and indicated Party B as an endorsee, the above endorsement shall be deemed to be a registered endorsement made by Party B, and therefore, Party B’s acquisition of the said bill without a lawful endorsement following the above endorsement cannot be presumed to be a lawful holder of the said bill because the series of endorsements defects in the series of endorsement, and the rights under the bill cannot be deemed to have been substantially transferred from Party B to Party B

[1] Article 1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 105 of the Civil Code / [2] Articles 16(1) and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 105 of the Civil Code

Plaintiff

Suwon Tourism Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Dong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na56238 delivered on May 10, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and third grounds for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that the court below recognized that the defendant lawfully issued and delivered the Promissory Notes of 20,000,000 won at par value to Non-party 1 on October 22, 1997, the payment date of which was February 23, 1998, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the payee column as blank, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the bona fide acquisition of the Promissory Notes, as long as this part of the court below's fact-finding is justified. The additional judgment of the court below which held that the Promissory Notes of this case was not lawfully issued and delivered but was lost before the issuance and delivery of the Promissory Notes of this case is not a legitimate ground

2. On the second ground for appeal

The contents of the bill should be interpreted objectively by the statement on the bill, and it should not be interpreted by changing the statement on the bill according to the circumstances other than the bill.

According to the records, it is recognized that Nonparty 2 signed and sealed Nonparty 3 as the endorser in the form of endorsement of the Promissory Notes delivered by Nonparty 1, and entered Nonparty 3’s name in the column of endorsement. The meaning of Nonparty 2’s statement in the column of endorsement is to objectively interpret it by itself in the form of the Promissory Notes itself, and it cannot be interpreted differently from the statement on the ground of circumstances other than the promissory Notes, such as his intent in its internal decision, etc., so the above endorsement by Nonparty 2 should be deemed as a registered endorsement with Nonparty 3 as the endorsee as the endorsee. Accordingly, in this case where there is no legitimate endorsement by Nonparty 3, the above endorsement cannot be presumed as a legitimate holder of the Promissory Notes, and it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s rights under the Promissory Notes are transferred from Nonparty 2 to the Plaintiff by the above endorsement.

Therefore, the court below held that Nonparty 2’s above endorsement was an endorsement in blank, without designating the person to whom this case’s promissory note was made, on the ground that Nonparty 3’s statement in the name was not written in the purport of the person to whom this case’s promissory note was made. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, Nonparty 2, who was legally transferred the right under the promissory note from Nonparty 1, was transferred to the Plaintiff on November 12, 1998, separate from the above endorsement on November 12, 1998, by the method of transferring the right to this case’s transfer, and completed the notice of transfer. Thus, the court below’s determination that the Plaintiff was a lawful holder of the promissorysory note, is just in its conclusion, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on continuous endorsement, endorsement, or assignment of nominative claim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It cannot be accepted that the above notice of transfer and assignment of the right under this case’s promissory note did not affect the conclusion.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)