The validity of so-called Self-Direction Promissory Notes (effective)

The so-called self-checked Promissory Notes, which are issued by the issuer of a Promissory Notes, is also valid.

Articles 3 and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Seoul High Court Decision 1930.11.6 (Dissenting)

Park Ho-young

Matern only

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with an annual interest rate of 6 percent from August 24, 1988 to the full payment day. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

Considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each statement of evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, No. 2-1, and No. 2-1, and No. 2 (each promissory note surface and back) without dispute over the establishment, the Defendant issued one promissory note with the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment, and the place of issuance and the place of payment, and one promissory note with the blank as the place of payment, and issued to the non-party 1 on the same day. The above order was transferred to the non-party 1 on the same day on June 18 of the same year to the non-party 1, the above order was transferred to the plaintiff in each order, and the Plaintiff, as the last holder, issued the above three-year bill on August 23, 198, the date of payment, and the Plaintiff’s presentation to the Defendant as the issuer of the instant promissory note to the non-party 1.

On February 10, 198, the Defendant issued a subcontract agreement between the non-party 6105 unit and the non-party 6685 unit with respect to the concrete sponsing construction work at the Army, which was issued as a leading payment to the above order. Since the Defendant terminated the above contract on April 7 of the same year because it did not comply with the Plaintiff's claim, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff, or even if it is acknowledged that the above assertion was in fact, it cannot be asserted that the Plaintiff had known that he would harm the Defendant at the time of the acquisition of the bill, and the above assertion cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff since it cannot be asserted against the above net as a direct party as a defense based on the underlying relationship between the bill and the non-party 685 unit construction work at the Army, and it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from August 24, 198 to the date following the date when the payment of the above Promissory Notes is proposed. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the performance is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act Article 6 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings with respect to the burden of litigation costs, and with respect to the declaration of provisional execution,

Judges Shin Nung-dae