In a case where a bill in which the addressee stated is delivered to another person without endorsement, whether a transfer of rights on the bill is made (negative)

Delivery of a bill in which the payee stated on the face of a bill to another person without endorsement is not legally transferred in accordance with the method stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act.

Article 14(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Bank of Korea

Dongyang Electronic Co., Ltd.

Chang Metal Co., Ltd.

Busan District Court Decision 95Da18051 delivered on July 13, 1995

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,00,000 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from March 25, 1995 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The judgment of the court below is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement Nos. 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, the defendant issued one promissory note of KRW 15,000 to the defendant to the defendant with the defendant, on Oct. 1, 1994, in order of the issuance date of the bill, the payment date, and the date of Mar. 24, 1995, each Busan City, Busan, the payment place, Busan, the payment place, and the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's delivery of one promissory note of KRW 15,00,00 for the face value, which is the first endorsement in blank and the second endorsement in order of the second endorsement in order of the second endorsement in order, the plaintiff's last holder's payment of the bill without filling the issue date of the bill as of Mar. 24, 1995, but the plaintiff's refusal to pay the bill to the defendant's defendant's payment.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that, on the ground that the Plaintiff is a lawful holder of the foregoing bill, the Defendant’s Intervenor claimed the payment of the above bill to the Defendant, who is the drawer, was not a legitimate holder of the said bill, and that the said bill was temporarily kept for the purpose of financing money from the named person, and that the named person was arbitrarily endorsed and endorsed to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, according to the above facts, the plaintiff is presumed to be the lawful holder of the bill.

However, in full view of the purport of the testimony of the court below's testimony, the defendant issued the above promissory note to the defendant's defendant and held it. The defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's assertion that the above promissory note was delivered to the defendant's defendant, but the above promissory note was temporarily kept and retained to the defendant's order in order to borrow money from the second sentence. The defendant's defendant's defendant's assertion that the defendant did not arbitrarily distribute the above promissory note with discounted discount. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's right to the above promissory note was discounted to the defendant's bill for the purpose of using the above promissory note's settlement funds issued by the defendant's defendant. The defendant's assertion that the above promissory note was not transferred to the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's right to the above bearer's right to the above promissory note was not a legally binding bill's right to the plaintiff's right to use the above promissory note as well as a legally binding bill's right to use it as evidence.

In addition, at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the bill from the name of the holder, the said bill was indicated as the addressee, while the Defendant’s Intervenor did not have any endorsement made by the first endorser, and thus, the series of endorsement was defective. As such, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the bill in good faith, since the Plaintiff did not have the appearance of the holder as the right holder due to the lack of the series of endorsement as above, it is difficult to deem that the bill was acquired in good faith.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost both the first and second trials. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Jin-hun (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)