Method of Transferring Rights under Bill

The method of transferring a right on a bill is an endorsement and delivery under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and if there is no endorsement and delivery, there was a transfer by the method of transferring a nominative claim under the Civil Code.

Article 450 of the Civil Code, Articles 11 and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da995 Decided Dec. 9, 1969 (No. 17No. 134)

Certain Treatment

Park Jae-Jin Park

1. The plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In the case of promissory notes, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000,000 per annum with 25% interest per annum from the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case is served on the Defendant to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Judgment on the main claim

As the ground for the plaintiff's primary claim of this case, the defendant claimed the payment of 10,00,00 won at par value on October 28, 1985, and the payment date on November 5, 1985, and one promissory note as the branch of the payment place in lieu of the Daegu Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City, and the payment place corporation, were issued and delivered to the non-party Park Jae-sung. The above Park Jae-sung delivered the above promissory note to the non-party final salary. The plaintiff is a lawful holder who received the above last salary from the above last salary on November 5, 1985, and the plaintiff presented the above bill at the payment date, but was refused, and the defendant claimed the payment of the above bill to the defendant who is the drawer of the above bill, and the defendant is not a legitimate holder of the above bill.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (Pledge), and 7, and 8-7 of Gap's evidence No. 2, without dispute, the defendant issued the bill on October 28, 1985 as witness's testimony and oral argument. The place of payment shall be the Daegu Metropolitan City, payment place, and the due date shall be Nov. 4, 1985, one promissory note with the face value of 10,000,000 won in blank. The defendant's seal Nos. 1, 2, and 8 of the above Promissory Notes No. 2 shall be affixed to the back of the above Promissory Notes, and the defendant's name and seal No. 1, 1985 shall be cancelled on the back of the above Promissory Notes No. 1, and the subsequent bill's name and seal No. 1, 1985 shall be cancelled, and the subsequent bill's name and seal No. 1, 1985 shall be deemed to be the bearer's name and seal No.5 of the above Promis.5.

In addition, in this case, without any assertion as to the existence of opposing power by the method of transferring nominative claims other than endorsement, the plaintiff as the plaintiff who supplemented the above payee's column because the payee stated it as Park Jae-sung in blank and stated it in the payee's column of the above promissory note issued in blank and held the above promissory note as valid endorsement, which is the method of transferring rights under the promissory note from the above Park Jae-sung to the plaintiff, cannot be claimed for the payment of the above promissory note to the defendant as the issuer of the above promissory note.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

As the ancillary cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff agreed with the Plaintiff on October 28, 1985. The Defendant sent 10,000,000 won at par value issued by the Defendant, 10,000 on October 26, 1985, 200, and 1 Promissory Notes with the payment place in lieu of the payment place Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, and YYK Co., Ltd., the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000,00 to the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserted that the said Promissory Notes was returned to the Defendant pursuant to the above agreement, but the Plaintiff sought the payment of the said amount under the above agreement against the Defendant, but there is no evidence to deem that there was an agreement as above between the Defendant and the Defendant. However, in full view of the evidence and the existence of the above agreement, the testimony and arguments of witnesses and the purport of the payment of the said Promissory Notes to the Defendant’s 10,000,000 won, 100,005.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for the amount of this case and the agreed amount are without merit, each of them is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Soo-tae (Presiding Judge)