[1] In a case where there are circumstances that may doubt the transferor's substantial non-rights in acquiring a bill of exchange, whether the acceptance of a bill without investigating such circumstances constitutes gross negligence (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the bank that acquired a blank bill with no payment date shall be deemed as gross negligence

[1] In the case of acquiring a bill or check, there is a gross negligence when the transferor takes over the bill or check in a timely manner without a reasonable investigation, despite the circumstances under which the transferor may doubt the substantial non-rights of the bill or check itself, based on the transferor, the bill or check itself.

[2] The case holding that when a bank acquires a bill as collateral, the bank is an individual bill issued by a bank, the payment of which is uncertain compared to a bill issued by a corporation; the issuer or its endorser is a person who has no transaction performance with the bank; the issuer or its endorser was offered as collateral at a place other than the location of the bank; and the bill issued by an individual was relatively high; and in particular, the requirements such as the payment date of the bill at the time of the acquisition of the bill were most insufficient; and in particular, when the bank received the bill as a payment from the issuer at the time of the acquisition of the bill, if the endorser was given the bill as a payment for the construction work, it is extremely difficult for the issuer in light of the empirical rule that the bill was not entered in the manner of the issuance, and it is extremely difficult for the issuer to doubt the substantial non-rights of the transferor, despite the fact that the bill falls under this example, it is found that there was a gross negligence in acquiring the bill without confirming the process of the issuance or conducting

[1] Articles 16(2) and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Articles 16(2) and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da19980 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3252), Supreme Court Decision 94Da55163 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3275), Supreme Court Decision 96Da30731 delivered on November 26, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 55)

Korea-U.S. Bank (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kang Sung-mo

Daejeon District Court Decision 96Na6088 delivered on January 8, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The Second Ground of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the above 10-year financial transaction agreement was made between the defendant and the above 10-year financial transaction, and that the above 10-year financial transaction agreement was made between the non-party 1 and the non-party 4, and that the non-party 9-year financial transaction agreement was made on the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9'.

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit. However, in light of the records, the fact that the defendant reported the loss of the bill of this case to the payment bank on February 6, 1995, it is not appropriate for the court below to give the payment bank a statement that the defendant reported the loss of the bill of this case as if it were on January 12, 1995. However, such inappropriate points are not grounds that affect the result unless the plaintiff's gross negligence is recognized as follows. The argument is without merit.

The First Ground for Appeal

Considering that the acquisition of a bill or check is based on ordinary transaction standards, if the transferor does not conduct an investigation that is reasonably deemed reasonable, despite the existence of circumstances that may doubt the transferor's substantial non-rights by the transferor, the bill or check itself, and the check itself, it is deemed that there is gross negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da19980 delivered on August 22, 1995).

If the facts are as determined by the court below, the plaintiff, a financial institution, is bound to deal with the bill transaction and acquisition by collateral compared to the case of ordinary people, and when the plaintiff acquires the bill of this case, the bill of this case is an individual issue, the payment of which is uncertain compared to the bill issued by a corporation, and the above strongness, which is the issuer or endorser, was a person who did not have any transactional record with the plaintiff bank. The above strongness, which is the payer, is the bank located in Daejeon, is the bank located in Daejeon, and the bill of this case is issued by an individual, which is relatively large, is offered as security in Seoul. In particular, even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on the plaintiff's assertion, if the strongness at the time of acquiring the bill of this case was delivered by the defendant as the construction price, it is extremely difficult to conclude that the defendant did not have any substantial right to the bill of this case, and there is no reasonable ground for the plaintiff's negligence in the court below's determination as to the issue of the bill of this case.

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

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)