Effect of a claim without filling up the blank bill

The drawee would not exercise the right as the holder of the bill without filling it. The claim in this case is unfair as a claim by a closed promissory note, since there is no assertion or proof to supplement it until the closing of argument in this case.

Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange

Supreme Court Decision 62Da680 delivered on December 20, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 6400,6401,6402); Decision 75(6)766 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Decision 79(2)771 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 392(4)982 of the Civil Procedure Act

Maok-hee

Silsan Construction Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap378) in the first instance trial

The part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following part among the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,20,000 won with the rate of 5% per annum from February 6, 1972 to the time of full payment, and with the rate of 6% per annum from the same day to the time of full payment with respect to the remaining amount of 200,000 won.

The plaintiff's claim part corresponding to the above cancellation part and the part corresponding to the defendant's order to pay the above payment are all dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be ten minutes for the first and second trials, one for them shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the other nine for them shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above two paragraphs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,38,700 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from the day following the delivery day of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment, and with an interest rate of 6% per annum from the day of full payment to the day of full payment as to the remaining 338,700 won.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

Revocation of the original judgment, dismissal of the plaintiff and the costs of lawsuit by both the first and second instances

In light of the purport of the above statement No. 3 without dispute, the defendant is able to recognize the fact that the above non-party 1 was changed to 6-6 of the non-party 1's representative director of the construction industry of Jung-gu, Seoul, the head office 22-2 of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's new testimony.

Next, the plaintiff's legal representative is the non-party 2's non-party 2's right to refuse to pay the above promissory note as the non-party 2's right to request the plaintiff to pay the above promissory note at the same time on September 20, 197, because the non-party 2's right to request the plaintiff to pay the above non-party 3's original promissory note to the defendant, the non-party 2's right to request the plaintiff to pay the above non-party 3's original promissory note is not sufficient to prove that the non-party 3's right to request the plaintiff to pay the above non-party 4's original promissory note is not sufficient to prove that the non-party 2's original promissory note was issued to the non-party 4, and the non-party 2's original promissory note was not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff's right to request the plaintiff to pay the above non-party 3's original promissory note was not sufficient to prove the above non-party 3's original bill.

Therefore, with respect to KRW 1,200,000, total amount of the above recognized construction deposit and promissory note deposit and KRW 1,000,000, among them, the defendant shall accept the above-mentioned construction deposit and promissory note deposit and KRW 1,000,000 from February 6, 1972 to the time when the complaint of this case was delivered to the plaintiff, and with respect to KRW 2,00,00,00,00, with a rate of 5% per annum, a civil legal interest, within the scope of the plaintiff's claim, and with respect to the above promissory note deposit and the record, it shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of 6% per annum under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from the same day after the date of delivery of the complaint of this case to the time of payment. The judgment of the court below which rejected the remainder of the above part of the defendant's appeal shall be justified, and with respect to the remaining part of the defendant's appeal, it shall be dismissed by applying the above 986, and the above part of the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed.

Judge Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)