claim for the amount payable with a promissory note, which has been endorsed without substantial cause, shall be deemed to have been extinguished.

Abuse of Rights

A bill must be dealt with separately from the relationship of the cause of the acceptance of a bill as an unmanned act, and a bill is a security representing rights under a certain bill, regardless of the relationship of the cause, and even if a bill is endorsed and transferred without any substantial cause, the transferee's claim for the payment of a promissory note is against the principle of good faith and it cannot be viewed as an abuse of rights.

Articles 77(1)1 and 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 2 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 82Na406 delivered on July 14, 1982

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case for a promissory note which is against the definition of the abuse of rights. Since the right to the bill is independently created by the act of the bill, it does not require the existence of rights related to the bill. In the event the right on the bill is transferred by endorsement, which is a method of transferring special rights to the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the rights on the bill must be exercised in good faith in order to protect the distribution of the bill. It is presumed that abuse of rights on the bill can not be permitted. Since the defendant's claim of this case is merely a means of trading (such as monetary payment, credit use, etc.) under the principle of trust and good faith, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's claim of this case for payment of the bill constitutes abuse of rights on the part of the non-party 1, which is an abuse of rights on the bill, since it is not a form of original duty, and it is against the principle of trust and good faith that the non-party 2 is entitled to payment on the bill.

However, the act of a promissory note must be dealt with separately from the underlying relationship of the acceptance of a promissory note as an unmanned act, and the promissory note is an instrument representing rights under a certain promissory note regardless of the underlying relationship. As stated in its holding, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the vendingsory note claim in violation of the principle of trust and good faith and the legal principles on abuse of rights under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act and by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the promissory note claim in this case constitutes abuse of rights since it constitutes grounds for reversal of Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, since the issuance of the Promissory note in this case was terminated, the agent of the non-party 2 made up for the blank portion unjustly and endorsed it to the plaintiff without any factual relationship, and there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff had legitimate title or substantial reason for holding the Promissory Notes in this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)