[1] Whether to cut off personal defense in an endorsement after the due date (negative)

[2] The case holding that when the holder of a promissory note, upon the refusal of payment on the date of payment, delivered to him in the form of endorsement in blank, and the former has filed a lawsuit against the issuer of the promissory note, but lost against his personal defense, and then filed a lawsuit against the issuer of the promissory note against him, the issuer of the promissory note may set up against the holder on his personal defense against the former

[1] The holder of a bill against whom personal defense from the issuer of a promissory note is asserted shall be entitled to the defenses still set up by the issuer even if the bill was endorsed and transferred to a third party, and the bill was acquired and possessed again by the endorsement. Meanwhile, an endorsement after the time limit is only the validity of the ordinary assignment of claims, and the right transferred therefrom is a right within the scope held by the endorser at the time of endorsement. Therefore, the obligor of the bill may oppose all defenses against the endorser that had already occurred at the time of endorsement. This is the same as even after the time limit for endorsement.

[2] The case holding that when the holder of a promissory note, upon the refusal to pay the promissory note at the due date, delivered to him in the form of endorsement in blank, and the former filed a lawsuit against the issuer of the promissory note, but lost against his personal defense, and then filed a lawsuit against the issuer of the promissory note against him, the issuer of the note may set up against the holder of the note on his personal defense against the former

[1] Articles 13, 17, and 20 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Articles 13, 17, and 20 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Meu353 delivered on April 13, 1982 (Gong1982, 494) Supreme Court Decision 93Da50543 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 809)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 2000Na2174 delivered on July 20, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The holder of a bill, against whom personal defense from the issuer of a promissory note is asserted, shall still be contested by the drawer even if the bill was endorsed and transferred to a third party, and the bill was acquired and possessed again by the endorsement. On the other hand, an endorsement after the time limit, unlike ordinary endorsement, is only the validity of the assignment of a designated obligation, and the right to be transferred by it is only the right of the endorser at the time of endorsement. Therefore, the obligor of the bill may oppose all defenses against the endorser that had already occurred at the time of endorsement. The same applies to this case even after the time limit for endorsement.

The court below, based on its evidence, accepted the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1 had filed a lawsuit against the defendant against the defendant, but the non-party 1's claim was dismissed, and the judgment became final and conclusive. The plaintiff received the above promissory note from the non-party 1 and received it at the request of the non-party 2, and then accepted it, accepted the fact that the non-party 1 had it currently in possession of it as at the present time, and then rejected payment at the due date, but the plaintiff delivered the promissory note to the non-party 2 who would receive it. The plaintiff delivered it to the non-party 2 as the beneficiary's endorsement, and then the non-party 2 delivered it again to the non-party 1. The court below determined that the non-party 1's claim was dismissed, since the non-party 1 had a protest against the non-party 1, who had already been delivered to the plaintiff due to the non-party 1's default.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to facts against the rules of evidence or the validity of res judicata, the delegation of collection and the principle of pleading, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)