(a) Whether the debtor of a promissory note has any right to be preserved when an application for provisional seizure was filed without filling the blank part;

(b) the law that recognizes the validity of the assignment of nominative claim after the due date.

A. The blank bill is different from the incomplete bill or the invalid bill, and its effect of the right in the bill is already effective in the form of filling the blank. Since the blank bill itself is already established in the form of a complete bill, the blank bill can also be transferred in the form of a simple delivery and transfer without endorsement. In particular, in the case of a blank bill, it is possible to transfer the right in the bill even by means of a simple delivery and transfer without endorsement. In addition, in relation to the principal debtor, such as the issuer of the blank bill, the bill can suspend the statute of limitations by filing a claim, seizure, provisional seizure, etc. by the blank bill itself, and even after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the right in the bill shall not be lost if it supplements the blank portion only before the completion of the statute of limitations. If the blank is the blank, it cannot be viewed that there is any defect in the series of endorsement even without the previous endorsement.

B. The purport of recognizing the validity of the assignment of nominative claim after the expiration of the period is not that it is necessary to set up against the endorser, or that it is necessary to set up against the endorser, such as notification or consent of the transfer, on the premise that there exists a nominative claim relationship, separate from the bill relationship, between the endorser and the obligor after the expiration of the period. The endorsement after the expiration of the period does not recognize a strong transfer of right or security effect, such as the common endorsement of the bill, and therefore, the obligor may set up against the endorser after the expiration of the period.

Articles 10, 20, and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Credit Guarantee Fund

For Ethical purposes

Seoul Central District Court (83Ka21269) in the first instance trial

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The decision of provisional attachment against the above parties regarding the case of application for provisional attachment against real estate No. 84Ka266, Jan. 27, 1984 shall be authorized by the same court.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the debtor in both the first and second instances.

A creditor requests a judgment of the same purport as that mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Article, and the debtor shall revoke the decision of provisional seizure as mentioned in paragraph (2) of this Article.

The above provisional attachment motion of the creditor is dismissed.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs should be borne by the obligee and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The same shall apply to the order.

On January 27, 1984, on the basis of the application for provisional seizure for the enforcement of the creditor's claim for each of the Promissory Notes No. 1 to 9 listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the debtor as Seoul Civil District Court No. 84Ka266, it is obvious to the party members that the provisional seizure was made on January 27, 1984.

First, as to the existence and existence of the above provisional seizure rights, evidence No. 5 (Evidence No. 6 (Examination Record), and seal impression No. 3-1 through 8 (Evidence No. 1) of the obligor’s authenticity are presumed to exist, and the obligor’s interest on the above provisional seizure’s loan No. 1 is presumed to have been paid to the obligee other than the above bank at the time of the above provisional seizure. The obligor’s interest on the loan No. 200 (Evidence No. 1) and the above additional note No. 1 to 9 (Evidence No. 1) were to be paid to the obligee at the time of the above provisional seizure against the above bank. The obligor’s interest on the loan No. 200 (Evidence No. 1) were to be paid to the obligee other than the above bank at the time of the above provisional seizure. The obligor’s interest on the loan No. 1 to 80 (Evidence No. 1) was to be paid to the obligee, and the obligor’s interest on the above additional note No. 1 to 18 (Evidence No.

However, since each of the bill listed in [Attachment 1] 4,5, and 9 was issued in blank with the original blank space, and all of the endorsements as to ten of the bill was made in blank space. Despite the fact that the blank bill does not come into force within the time limit for presentment for payment of each of the above bill, the bank or creditors outside the application shall not make up the blank space within the time limit for payment of the bill. Since the above three-year statute of limitations has already expired, each claim for payment of the bill has already been made after the expiration of the above three-year statute of limitations, each of the above three-year bill of limitations has already been issued by the debtor with the blank space with the original blank space, and the three-year bill of limitation has already been issued by the debtor with the blank space remaining in blank, and even if it has already been issued with the blank column 10 of the above bill, each of the above bill of limitation can only be viewed as being invalid by the debtor's own endorsement without the lapse of the time limit for payment of the bill.

In addition, the obligor asserts that the non-applicant bank transferred each of the above bills to the obligee after the expiration of the time limit for presentment for payment, and there is only the validity of the so-called assignment of nominative claim since it constitutes an endorsement after the time limit. Since the obligor and the non-applicant bank did not have a nominative claim relation, there is no further claim to be transferred to the obligee, and therefore the obligee cannot have a claim to be transferred from the beginning to the obligee and there is lack of requisite to set up against the obligee such as notification or consent of the transfer, etc., the obligee's transfer of each of the above bills from the bank outside the applicant bank at the expiration of the time limit for presentment for payment is based on the obligee's own discretion and there is no validity of the so-called assignment of nominative claim after the time limit. However, it is recognized that the validity of the assignment of a designated bill after the time limit is valid as the obligor's assertion, on the premise that there is a nominative claim relation, separate from the bill relationship between the endorser and the obligor after the time limit, it cannot be acknowledged as valid as a defense against the obligor at all of the above time limit.

Therefore, since a creditor is the legitimate manager of the bill 9 copies of the above provisional seizure, the provisional seizure of this case has the right to be preserved. Meanwhile, considering the various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, the creditor is also required to preserve the above provisional seizure, and since the creditor deposits 11,00,000 won as a security for damages arising from the above provisional seizure, the provisional seizure of this case is deemed reasonable to maintain the objection, and therefore the above provisional seizure order of this case should be approved. Thus, since the original judgment is unfair in conclusion, the provisional seizure order of this case is revoked, and the above provisional seizure order of this case is approved, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the debtor who has lost all the first and second trials and is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Judge)