The effect of filling up in blank after the maturity of the endorsement made before the maturity of the blank bill.

In the case of a blank bill with a change of the en banc Decision and this decision, the question must be strictly distinguished from the time of filling the blank and the time of the establishment of the act of filling the blank. However, the time of the act of filling the blank can not be deemed to be the time of the establishment of the act of filling the blank, and the time of establishment of the act of filling the blank cannot be deemed to be the time of the act of filling the blank. Therefore, an endorsement made before the maturity of the blank bill shall not be deemed to be an endorsement after the expiration of the time of the act of filling the blank.

Article 77(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 14 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1217 Decided August 31, 1965

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District of the first instance, Daejeon District of the second instance;

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts established by the original judgment, the defendant issued and delivered to the non-party 1 a bill of blank to the non-party 1 on January 20, 666, the amount of KRW 50,00, the payment place, the Daejeon Branch of Hanil Bank, the person who will be paid, the blank Promissory Notes issued on December 13, 65, and the date of issuance. The non-party 1 shall be delivered and transferred to the non-party 2, the non-party 2 shall be delivered and transferred to the non-party 3 at that time, and the non-party 3 shall be endorsed and transferred to the plaintiff on January 10, 66, and the plaintiff who was the holder of the bill corrected the name of the person to be paid to the non-party 3 on August 24, 67, and the right under the bill shall not be exercised without filling the blank bill, but the time when the bill of this case was established cannot be deemed to be the time of filling the blank bill, and the bill of this case shall not be established at that time.

Therefore, the endorsement of this case based on the previous precedents of the party members conflicting with the above opinion (Supreme Court Decision 65Da1217 delivered on August 31, 65, - Supreme Court Decision 13No. 2012 delivered on the Civil Part 13Nu2 delivered on the Civil Part 112 delivered on the Civil Part 112 delivered on the party members, and the Supreme Court Decision No. 1802 delivered on the basis of the foregoing opinion) has no reason to discuss the appeal that the validity of the assignment of nominative claim is only the validity of the assignment of nominative claim after the due date. Accordingly, it is so decided

This decision is reasonable in the opinion of all participating judges except the dissenting opinion that the grounds for appeal are reasonable. This decision is made by the assent of all participating judges, except for the dissenting opinion that the grounds for appeal are reasonable.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-dong and Kim Jong-dong Dog-dong and Kim Jong-dong Dog-Jakngng, Kim Jong-gu, Kim Young-gu, Hong-han, Kim Young-han, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young