logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) (변경)대법원 1971. 5. 24. 선고 71다570 판결
[약속어음금][집19(2)민,060]
Main Issues

The series of endorsement of a bill is sufficient by the existence of form, and it is sufficient if the series of endorsement is increased by the statement itself.

Summary of Judgment

The continuous endorsement of a bill is sufficient in the form of existence and shall be continuous of endorsement in the form of the bill itself.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 16 of the Bills of Exchange

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu District Court Decision 70Na319 delivered on February 16, 1971

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for this case that the plaintiff, as the holder of four promissory notes, ordered the plaintiff to pay the above promissory notes to the defendant, who is the endorser, as the holder of four promissory notes in this case, by acquiring four copies of each promissory notes indicated in the judgment of the court below from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, and transferring them to the plaintiff without designating the beneficiary as the holder of four promissory notes, but the payment of the above promissory notes was refused, and the plaintiff's testimony is insufficient to determine the authenticity of the above endorsement, and there is no other evidence that the defendant's endorsement was duly formed. However, as long as the series of endorsement of the promissorysory notes is sufficient in the form, and it is proved by the statement itself as to the bill itself, the plaintiff, the holder of the promissorysory notes, is presumed to be the legitimate holder of the above promissorysory notes (Article 79 and Article 16 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act).

Therefore, according to the opinion of the participating judges, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court

arrow
심급 사건
-대구지방법원 1971.2.16.선고 70나319
참조조문
본문참조조문
기타문서