Whether a person to whom a promissory note has been endorsed before the expiration of the period for drawing up the protest for non-payment shall be deemed as an endorsement after the expiration of the period for drawing up the protest for non-payment.

If the holder of a promissory note endorsed in blank takes over the promissory note by endorsement before the expiration of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment, then it cannot be deemed an endorsement after the expiration of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment, even if the endorsee was required to fill up the protest with himself/herself.

Articles 10, 20, and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 15 others (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Busan Housing Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na1447 delivered on October 8, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

The judgment of the court below on the point that the plaintiff points out the lawsuit (the plaintiff's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the above promissory note was received by endorsement and transfer from the non-party who is the payee after the expiration of the time limit for filing a protest for non-payment of the Promissory Notes in this case) is justified in light of the evidence relation (in particular, the plaintiff's presentation for payment on the day on which the above promissory note was held and paid), and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law of misconception of facts contrary to the rules

2. Determination on the above grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Defendant issued the Promissory Notes to the Nonparty on January 17, 1992, whose payment date was 4.25, in blank; (b) the Nonparty’s endorsement and transfer the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff with blank, and (c) the Nonparty’s endorsement and endorsement date was not made; (b) the Plaintiff, as the holder of the said Promissory Notes, stated his name in blank, affixed his name on the part of the endorser, and presented them for payment on the date of payment; and (c) the Plaintiff was refused to pay the Promissory Notes; and (d) the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff paid the instant claim by filling up all blanks, such as the Nonparty and the Nonparty’s endorsee’s seal on the part of the Nonparty, and the date on which the endorsement was made on January 18, 1992; and (b) according to the above facts, even if the Nonparty had already been endorsed after the payment date for filling up the blank of the Promissory Notes, it cannot be deemed the due date after the endorsement made to the Plaintiff.

If the holder of a promissory note endorsed in blank takes over the promissory note by endorsement before the expiration of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment, it cannot be seen as an endorsement after the expiration of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 68Da1176, Aug. 31, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 79Da1999, Mar. 11, 1980; etc.). If the factual relations are legally established by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assignment of a promissorysory note or a bill, inconsistent with the reasoning, or as to the expiration of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment, and thus, it is reasonable to see that the parties member had already made a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da18681, Jun. 127, 1967).

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)