Whether a promissory note loses its right of recourse without a statement in the place of issue or in the name of the issuer or not stated therein.

A promissory note, even if the place of payment is indicated in the place of payment, shall be deemed to have lost the right of recourse against the person who has the right of recourse against the person against whom the right of recourse is against, unless the statement in the place of payment or the name of the issuer is stated therein, and unless it is presented for payment within the due time limit for presentment.

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 75Na624 delivered on December 19, 1975

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

(A) Determination on the first ground for appeal

A promissory note under Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act has the legal provisions that must be stated in the promissory note, and even one of the matters is stated, it shall not take effect as a bill unless otherwise specifically provided. Therefore, even if the place of payment and the place of payment are indicated in a promissory note, the promissory note shall be deemed to lose its right of recourse against the person against whom the right of recourse is filed, unless it is stated in the statement of the place of payment and the place of payment, or in the name of the issuer.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 2 issued and delivered this promissory note to the non-party 1 on March 8 of the same year, which had been issued and delivered to the non-party 2, the non-party 2, in turn, at the place where the bill was issued on January 30, 1975 (the non-party 1 did not state the additional note in the name of the drawer according to the statement in subparagraph 1-1 of the above certificate). The non-party 2, who is the non-party 2, issued and delivered this promissory note to the non-party 1, who is the non-party 2, again, exempted the non-party 2 from the duty of preparing a protest to the plaintiff on February 8 of the same year, and the non-party 2, who is the non-party 2, at the same time before the maturity of the bill, presented for payment at the place where the bill was issued and the payment was refused, but the plaintiff did not present for payment within the statutory deadline for the bill, or the plaintiff's claim for the above check account transfer.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an error in interpreting the theory of law or applying the law in the original judgment.

(B) Determination on the second ground

The court below rejected the plaintiff's preliminary assertion that the amount of money in the original judgment was lent to the defendant as an agreement with the defendant and that the discount of this case was made between the plaintiff and the defendant as the introduction of non-party 2 on January 30, 1975. The court below rejected the plaintiff's preliminary assertion that the amount in the original judgment was made in order to secure payment of the amount, and there is no evidence to affirm that the court below erred in the rules of evidence in the process of the above fact-finding,

If so, it cannot be said that the original judgment is unlawful in the misapprehension of legal principles. There is no reason for the discussion.

(2) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)