Effect of the endorsement of a bill that interferes with another person's name and its endorser;

Since the seal of endorsement does not include a person without the name of the holder, the act of a bill as a person without the name of the holder is null and void. If an endorsement is made only at the beginning when it becomes a multiple endorsement, the bill is not continuous and there is no series of endorsement as stipulated in this Article, and the acquisitor of the bill after the invalid endorsement cannot be said to be the person who proves his right by the series of endorsement.

Articles 7, 16, and 82 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Park Jong-chul

superior

Daejeon High Court Decision 62Na11 delivered on August 8, 1962

The original judgment shall be reversed and the judgment

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as follows.

In this case, the court below's decision is clear that the defendant's argument that the endorsement in the first order, which is the last endorser of the bill of this case, is null and void since the defendant's initial endorser of the bill of this case, is written in his name and it is clear that since the series of endorsement has been cut off, the plaintiff, the acquisitor of the bill after the invalid endorsement, does not have the right to claim this case, as alleged by the defendant, is recognized that the new order endorsement was written by the defendant and the new order is clear and that the series of endorsement cannot be cut and it cannot be found that there is a formal defect under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. Since Article 82 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act provides that the signature includes the name and seal and other obstacles cannot be identified as the original form, and it is reasonable to interpret that it does not interfere with the original judgment in the case of a bill of this case for commercial distribution, and therefore, it does not constitute a violation of Article 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, as well as a violation of the legal principles as an invalid bill of this case.

Justices Choi Ma-man (Presiding Justice) and Lee Young-chul (Presiding Justice)