In the event that the last endorsement has been acquired in blank without examining and verifying the distribution process, whether there is gross negligence;

As the last endorsement of a bill in blank can be transferred only by means of simple delivery, the Plaintiff did not investigate and confirm the distribution process by taking contact to the last endorsement on the face of the bill to anyone, barring any special circumstance to doubt the transferor’s substantial non-rights in acquiring the bill through the method of discount, and it cannot be said that there was gross negligence in acquiring the bill, and the same is also applicable to the case where the Plaintiff is a bond company.

Article 16 of the Bills of Exchange

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Samsung Electronic Industries Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1484 decided May 1, 200

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 84Na1707 delivered on December 28, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the defendant's intervenor purchased the bill of this case from the non-party 1, the bill of this case from the non-party 1's end on September 30, 1983 at discount, and was in custody of the second end on the office's blank endorsement, the non-party 1, who was an employee of this case, should request the non-party 1's discount to the non-party 1's end on the bill of this time, and then, the above bill of this case was purchased from the non-party 1's end on the part of the non-party 1's end on the part of the defendant 1's end on the part of the defendant 1's end on the part of the non-party 1's end on the part of the defendant 1's end on the part of the defendant 1's end on the part of the non-party 1's end on the part of the defendant 1's end on the part of the defendant 2's end on the part of this case's note.

However, as in the bill of this case, since the bill with the last endorsement in blank can be transferred only by simple delivery, the plaintiff's acquisition of the bill by the discount method can not be deemed as being gross negligence in acquiring the bill because the plaintiff did not investigate the distribution process by communicating the last endorsement to anyone who is in the face of the bill, unless there are special circumstances to doubt the transferor's substantial right. This is the same as in the case of the plaintiff as the bonds company. On the other hand, the facts acknowledged by the court below alone are hard to find that there were circumstances to doubt the transferor's substantial non-rights at the time of acquiring the bill of this case. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff was negligent on the ground of its reasoning is not fully deliberated, or the bona fide acquisition or bona fide acquisition of the bill has affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on gross negligence in acquiring the bill of this case, which constitutes grounds for the reversal of Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)