(a) Whether the right of recourse of an endorser to recover a bill whose issue price is not supplemented is exercised (negative);

B. Whether the request for the payment of the bill is made to the issuer of the endorser under Paragraph (a) above

A. The right of recourse cannot be exercised even if the endorser paid the bill to the holder and acquired it by the endorser, as long as the holder presented payment of the bill that is not supplemented by the place of issuance, it cannot be deemed a lawful presentation of payment. Therefore, the endorser cannot exercise his right of recourse under the bill even if he paid the bill to the holder and acquired it.

B. The drawer of a Promissory Notes is the primary debtor of the Promissory Notes, who is absolutely and finally liable for payment to the holder on the Promissory Notes, and even if the holder of a Promissory Notes is unable to exercise his right of recourse on the Promissory Notes, if it is proved that he is the holder on the Promissory Notes, the endorser may claim the amount of the Promissory Notes against the drawer. Thus, if the endorser pays the amount to the holder and redeems the Promissory Notes whose issue price is not supplemented with the assignee’s agreement, the endorser is the legitimate holder on the Promissory Notes. Accordingly, he

(a) Articles 10, 38, and 43 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Han-ro Housing Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Large Fisheries & Fisheries Corporation

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Na21776 delivered on January 17, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) on October 5, 1987, the defendant, based on macro evidence, issued one promissory note with a face value of six million won at the time of payment, and on November 28, 198 of the payment date, in blank, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Korea Bank, the payment place, and the issue date, all of which are in blank; and (b) the above non-party company transferred the endorsement of the above promissory note to the plaintiff around October of the same year, and then endorsed it to the non-party New Promissory Notes, the representative director of the plaintiff, and then transferred the endorsement of the above promissory note to the non-party New White on October 28, 1987; (c) since the above new promissory note was written in supplement to the above new promissory note to the plaintiff on August 29, 1987, the plaintiff cannot exercise its rights to the new promissory note as the holder of the new promissory note without exercising its rights on the new promissory note.

In light of the above, as long as the above new white rule presented a bill for which the issue price is not supplemented, it cannot be deemed a lawful presentation for payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1858, Aug. 9, 1988). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to institute a lawsuit against the above new white rule and acquired a bill with the above new white rule, the Plaintiff cannot exercise its right of recourse against the said new white rule.

However, the drawer of a promissory note is the principal obligor of the amount of the promissory note, and as such, even in cases where the holder of a promissory note is unable to exercise his right to recourse on the promissory note, if it is proved that he is the holder on the promissory note, the issuer may claim the amount of the promissory note against the drawer. However, as in this case, if the Plaintiff paid the amount of the promissory note to the said New White Rules and recovered the amount by agreement between the transferor and the transferee, the Plaintiff is the legitimate holder on the promissory note, and therefore, the Plaintiff can claim the payment of the amount against the Defendant

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that made a different judgment shall have an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the responsibility of the issuer of a promissory note or the status under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the arguments

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)