(a) Degree of the duty of care required for acquiring the last endorsement of the bill in blank;

(b) Cases where the acquisition of a bill is no gross negligence;

A. Since the last endorsement of a bill in blank can be transferred only by simple delivery, the transferee cannot be deemed to have the duty of care to have been duly verified by the drawer or the last endorser on the face of the bill, unless there is any doubt that the bill was wrong in acquiring it by means of discount of the bill, or there is no special circumstance to doubt the transferor’s substantial non-rights.

B. In a case where the last holder of a bill acquires rights to the bill by means of continuous endorsement in appearance, and the drawer of the bill is a company capable of recognizing credit, and the client for discount has engaged in transactions with the acquisitor for a long time, it cannot be deemed that there was gross negligence on the part of the acquisitor of the bill on the part of the drawer, endorser, or bank for payment.

Article 16 of the Bills of Exchange

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu192 Decided May 28, 1985

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Samsung Electrical Co., Ltd. and one other

Seoul Central District Court Decision 85Na3212 delivered on August 19, 1986

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

As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) as to the Promissory Notes on March 30, 1985, issued and delivered by Defendant Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. to Defendant 2 on March 30, 1985, the Plaintiff was subject to an endorsement at around 2.9 in blank, and (b) the Plaintiff transferred the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff without endorsement; (c) on February 16, 196, the Plaintiff became the holder of the said Promissory Notes and transferred it directly to Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3; and (d) the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 did not have any transaction of the previous Promissory Notes with Nonparty 2, etc.; and (e) did not verify the transferor’s personal information while making a discount on the said Promissory Notes, and did not inquire into the issuer, endorser, or payment bank, etc.; and (e) did not lawfully acquire the right to the said Promissory Notes to the extent that the transferor does not know that it was an unentitled person.

However, as in the bill of this case, since it is possible to transfer a bill in blank only with the simple delivery, there is no doubt that the bill is wrong in acquiring it by the method of bill discount, or there is no special reason to doubt the transferor's substantial non-rights, the issuer or the last endorser on the face of the bill cannot be held with the duty of care to obtain it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu192, May 28, 1985).

In the case of this case, as recognized by the court below, the plaintiff acquired a right to the bill as a final holder by continuous endorsement, and the drawer of the bill is a company capable of recognizing credit, and the non-party 2, who requested a discount, was engaged in transactions in the bill discount for a long time with the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was gross negligence even if the plaintiff did not make a confirmation inquiry as to the acquisition of the bill, as recognized by the court below, even if it did not reach

The above judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the bona fide acquisition of bills or the acquisition of bills, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. This constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. The arguments are with 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 Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)