Whether a person subject to a judgment of nullification on a blank bill can exercise his/her rights on the bill by filling the blank in addition to the bill (affirmative)

In light of the fact that the nullification judgment system gives the person who has lost the securities or certificates the same formal qualification as those in possession of them so that the rights can be realized, and that the issuer of the blank bill bears the obligation of the prohibition of the bill on condition of filling the blank, and that the holder of the blank bill may exercise the rights on the bill by filling the blank at any time and by filling the blank together with the transfer of the blank bill. Thus, in consideration of the fact that the blank bill has economic value such as the completed bill, and is being distributed with the circulation of the blank bill, a person subject to the nullification judgment on the blank bill can claim that all the rights on the bill under the condition of filling the blank and filling the blank as the "right by the certificate under Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Act" under Article 468 of the same Act. Accordingly, a person subject to the nullification judgment on the blank bill may exercise the right to fill the blank against the issuer by declaring his intention other than the bill and seek payment of the blank bill.

Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Han-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

LLC Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Du-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na20204 delivered on November 12, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

When a judgment of nullification has been rendered on a blank bill, the bill shall lose its validity as a bill, and the person who has obtained the judgment of nullification shall recover his status as the holder of the bill and exercise his rights on the bill (Articles 467 and 468 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, since a blank bill, in which part of the requirements for the bill is a blank bill, the right on the bill shall not be exercised without filling in the blank bill, and even if there exists a judgment of nullification on the blank bill, the blank bill itself shall not be restored by such judgment of nullification, and there is no way to fill in the blank on the face of the bill.

However, Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, "When a judgment of nullification has been rendered, the applicant may assert the right based on the certificate against the person who bears the obligation by means of the certificate." The judgment of nullification is intended to grant the same formal qualification as the one in possession of the person who loses the securities or certificate, and the issuer of the blank bill bears the duty of payment of the bill under the condition of filling the blank. The rights of the bill under the condition of filling the blank is transferred to the transferee along with the transfer of the blank bill, and the holder can exercise the rights on the bill by filling the blank at any time. Considering the fact that the blank bill has economic value such as the completion bill, and is circulated with the blank bill, it is reasonable to view that the person who has received the judgment of nullification on the blank bill can claim that all the rights on the bill under the condition of filling the blank and filling the blank as the right under the certificate under Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff, who received the judgment of nullification of the Promissory Notes issued in blank with each column of the issue date, the place of issue, the place of payment, and the receiver, can exercise the right to supplement the blank part against the defendant, who is the issuer and claim payment of the blank part by the declaration of intention other than the Promissory Notes is just, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as to the facts alleged in the grounds of appeal are all acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)