Where a person who received a bill by means of a blank endorsement and simply transfers it to another person by delivery is recovered by the district, the legal relationship concerning the re-payment;

In a case where a person, after having received a bill by endorsement in blank, merely transfers it to another person by delivery, redeems the bill in response to the settlement of the holder’s lawsuit and redeems the bill, even though the holder, who received the reimbursement, does not naturally acquire the right of recourse against the endorser, shall be deemed to be able to exercise the right of recourse against the previous endorser in accordance with the method of assignment of nominative claim under the Civil Act. However, the person liable for the lawsuit can only stand against the transferor by all his personal defense.

Articles 47(3) and 49 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Plaintiff

Pharmaceutical seafarer Food (Attorney Lee-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 97Na7941 delivered on March 27, 1998

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below held that the non-party 1 and 2 transferred the bill to the non-party 3, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 transferred the bill to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 by endorsement in blank, respectively, without filling up the blank, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 merely delivered the bill to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 to the non-party 2. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 transferred the bill to the non-party 3 by endorsement in blank, respectively, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were refused to pay the bill at its own due date, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were bound to redeem the bill to the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 were not entitled to recover the bill, and the plaintiff and the non-party 2 were not entitled to recover the bill to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not entitled to recover the bill.

However, even if the court below held that, after the receipt of a bill by endorsement in blank and then the person who simply transferred it to another person by delivery, the bill was repaid in response to the settlement of the holder's lawsuit and the bill was redeemed, the right of recourse against the previous endorser is not naturally acquired by the right of recourse against the previous endorser, it shall be deemed that the holder who received the reimbursement can acquire and exercise the right of recourse against the previous endorser in accordance with the method of assignment of nominative claim under the Civil Act. However, the person liable for the lawsuit can only stand against the transferor by all human defenses against the transferor.

In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the purport of proof, in this case, the Plaintiff acquired the right of recourse against the Defendant by performing the duty of recourse against the last holder of the bill to the last holder of the bill, and the Plaintiff is deemed to have included the purport of asserting that the Plaintiff was entitled to the right of recourse against the Defendant by repaying the amount of the bill and returning the bill to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, thereby claiming that the Defendant was transferred the right of recourse against the Defendant as the cause of the claim. Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated and judged the legitimacy of the claim, by exercising the right of recourse first, clearly clarifying what the cause of the claim in this case

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the remainder that the case was based on the plaintiff's right of re-determination that the plaintiff directly acquired. It is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the transfer of right of re-determination or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations without exercising the right of re-determination, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)