(a) Whether the bill of exchange in blank can be transferred by delivery;

(b)whether the final holder of a “A” bill is contested against the drawer’s personal defenses, in the event that the latter supplements the addressee at his own expense;

(a) A bill issued with blanks may be transferred legally and legally by delivery;

(b)‘A’ if the bill is transferred by India, Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes shall apply. Thus, even if the last holder, after the transfer of the bill, has filled the bill, has known that it would prejudice the drawer, it shall not be contested by the drawer, regardless of the description on the face of the bill.

(a) Article 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 11 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act;

Geumyang Corporation, Inc.

Attorney Park Yong-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul Central District Court Decision 93Na21124 delivered on April 7, 1994

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal.

In light of the record, the judgment of the court below that stated in the judgment of the receiver of the Promissory Notes in this case is just and cannot be accepted to criticize the judgment of the court below on the ground that it stated otherwise.

On the second ground for appeal

The bill issued with blanks can be legally transferred by India and Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act applies to cases where the bill is transferred by India. Thus, even if the last holder to whom the bill was delivered was transferred after the previous transfer of the bill, he/she shall not be contested against the drawer's defense, such as defense of cause relations, regardless of what is written on the face of the bill, unless the holder has knowingly acquired it to impair the drawer.

As duly admitted by the court below, in this case, where the defendant issued the Promissory Notes in blank to the non-party 1 and the plaintiff acquired the Promissory Notes before transfer by delivery, it is not recognized that the plaintiff acquired the Promissory Notes with the knowledge that he would harm the defendant, and even if the plaintiff stated himself as the addressee in the Promissory Notes, the defendant cannot be set up against the plaintiff on the grounds that he could assert against the above non-party 1. Thus, although the reasoning of the judgment below is insufficient, it is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit affecting the judgment. We find no ground for the argument.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)