Whether a payer of a promissory note with a defect in the requirements of the bill can exercise his/her right of recourse (negative)

The presentment for payment made pursuant to a promissory note whose place of issue is not specified is invalid as a lawful presentment for payment. In such a case, the holder of the note must lose his right of recourse against the endorser. As such, the endorser who paid the bill after the right of recourse is lost shall not exercise his/her right of recourse against the former.

Articles 47, 53, 75, and 76 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da1189 delivered on August 14, 1979 (Article 53(3) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 53(2)661 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 53(2)661 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 253No12189 Decided August 13, 1985 (Article 53(4)61 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 761-1237 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act)

Park In-style

Completion houses

Jinsan District Court of the first instance (87Gadan19, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 4,500,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 1, 1986 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The same shall apply to the order.

On December 31, 1986, the plaintiff issued and delivered 1 promissory note to the defendant 4,50,00 won at par value, 4,00, 1985.30, 30 April 30, 1986, 1986. The defendant exempted the non-party 1 from the obligation to prepare a certificate of non-payment on the same day, and again endorsed the above promissory note to the plaintiff again, the plaintiff again endorsed the above promissory note to the non-party 1, the last holder of the non-party 4, 1985, 4,50,00 won at face value, 4,50,000 won at face value, and the above promissory note was redeemed from the non-party 1 to the non-party 4, 500,000 won at face value, and thus, the court below's assertion that the non-party 1's new bill of non-party 4,500,000 won at face value and 1,00.

However, according to the above evidence No. 1 of this case, the Promissory Notes No. 1 of this case is a blank note which is a blank note which does not state the place of issue, and it cannot be deemed that there was any indication of the place of issue stated in the name of the issuer in the column of the issuer because it is a note which is a blank note which does not state the place of issue, and it cannot be deemed that there was any indication of the place of payment stated in the name of the issuer. The non-party gold Co., Ltd., the final holder of the Promissory Notes No. 1 of this case, which is the last holder of the Promissory Notes No. 1 of this case, was refused to pay without supplementation and it can be recognized that the period of legal presentation has expired. Thus, in order for the holder of a false Promissory Notes to exercise his right of recourse against the party against the party against whom the Promissory Notes was issued, it is necessary to present the legal payment system with the Promissory Notes No. 76 of the Promissory Notes No. 1 of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit and thus, it should be dismissed. However, since the original judgment is unfair in its conclusion and the defendant's appeal against this is with merit, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed by cancelling the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Choi Dong-dong(Presiding Judge)