The responsibility of the drawee to the holder of a stolen bill prior to delivery

A person who prepares a bill as an intention to put it in circulation and puts his/her name and affixes his/her seal on it as the drawer cannot be exempted from the responsibility of the drawer for a person who is presumed to be a lawful holder of the bill, even though it was stolen before delivering it to a third party, unless the holder knew that it was assigned by an unentitled person in acquiring the bill, or unless he/she proves or proves by gross negligence that he/she was aware that it was a lawful holder

Article 78 of the Bills of Exchange

Ein fever

Park Ho-heat

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,300,000 won with 25% interest per annum from June 28, 1986 to the time of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

The defendant's intent to distribute 2,300,00 won at par value, and the date of issuance on April 1, 1986 at Busan City, the place of payment, Busan Bank's annual branch, and a promissory note returned to the addressee's home on June 10, 1986, with no dispute between the parties concerned (the defendant's assertion that the above issuance was forged after a confession of the above issuance was stolen, and thus the confession was revoked, but the above confession was not revoked, but there is no evidence to prove that the above confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and the witness's testimony was taken full account of the statement in subparagraph 1-2 (after the back of the Promissory Notes) and the witness's testimony. If the plaintiff acquired the bill of this case which was endorsed by the endorsement of the payee on April 3, 1986, the plaintiff obtained it from the non-party Do, and the plaintiff can be presumed to have received it as a legitimate endorsement of the above bill (the above presumption that the bill was additionally accepted).

The defendant asserts that since the defendant was stolen before preparing the above bill and delivering it to a third party, it is not responsible as the drawer. However, the defendant's assertion that the bill is not in circulation (use) and the drawer's signature and seal is not attributable to the person who is presumed to be lawful holder even if the bill was stolen before delivering it to a third party, the holder cannot be held liable as the drawer for the person presumed to be lawful holder of the bill, unless the holder knew that the bill was transferred by the unentitled person, or proves and proves that he was not aware of it due to gross negligence. Thus, the defendant's argument is groundless.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above amount of KRW 2,300,000 as well as damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 28, 1986 to the time of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of this case are assessed against the losing party and provisional execution is permitted. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judges Yellow Mamomo