The validity of a Promissory Notes payable on a fixed date, expressed by the day before the date of maturity as being earlier than the date of issuance (negative)

The issue date of a promissory note is one of the requirements for a promissory note, and the rights under a promissory note cannot be duly established without any specification. Thus, in the case of a promissory note payable on a fixed date with its maturity, if the maturity date is expressed as one of the requirements for a promissory note, it shall be determined only by the statement on the bill, and it shall be interpreted that the requirements for a promissory note are inconsistent with each other and shall be null and void.

Articles 75 and 76 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 1994, 2614, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 97Na4100 delivered on October 30, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the claim for promissory notes

The issue date of a promissory note is one of the requirements for a promissory note and its rights under the promissory note cannot be duly established without the statement thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da12098, 94Da12104, Sept. 9, 1994). Thus, in the case of a promissory note with the fixed date of maturity, if the date of maturity is expressed as one of the requirements for a promissory note and the date of maturity is expressed as one of the days earlier than the issue date, it shall be interpreted that the requirements for a promissory note are inconsistent with each other and invalid.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found as follows. The defendant issued to the non-party one promissory note at the face value of 30,00,000 won, the date of issuance on October 2, 1995, the date of payment on January 17, 1995, the date of payment on January 17, 1995, the complete payment on the place of payment, and the payment on the non-party. The above non-party endorsed and transferred the above promissory note to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was the last holder of the promissory note of this case who was ordered to pay the above bank, but the payment was refused. The above promissory note of this case is invalid because the payment date was prior to the date of its issuance, and it is not allowed to supplement or correct some errors in the statement of a promissory note of this case on its own if it meets the requirements for a promissory note. The court below's findings of fact and judgment are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to facts or incomplete deliberation as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

On the other hand, Supreme Court Decision 80Da1295 Decided July 28, 1981 cited in the ground of appeal is that in the case of promissory notes whose issue date is February 30, 1978, the issue date is valid as a promissory note with the issue date as of February 30, 1978, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an appropriate precedent for this case.

2. As to the claim for the agreed amount

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of the Promissory Notes in this case to the plaintiff on October 15, 1995, and that the plaintiff is obligated to pay 30,000,000,000 won as the agreed amount and damages for delay as well as the amount of the agreed amount to the plaintiff. In light of the records, the evidence consistent with this reasoning is not trustable and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)