Liability of the name and sealer as a result of defects in delivery of bills

If a promissory note drawn up with face value, maturity, place of issue, place of payment, and place of payment for the purpose of distributing it is lost, the person who signed and sealed the promissory note already had the appearance of the blank note at the time of his/her possession. Thus, even though the promissory note was not yet complete and its name and sealed was not issued, in light of the circulation securities of the promissory note, it is reasonable to view that the sealer bears the responsibility on the promissory note as the drawer, unless he/she acted in bad faith or gross negligence in acquiring it by the holder under Articles 16 and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act.

Articles 16, 17, and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Taiwan Co., Ltd.

Egylology Co., Ltd.

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 25 percent interest per annum from February 20, 1991 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

If Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1, 3-2, 1, and 3-1, 2-2 of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and 3-2 were collected from the testimony of Song-hee's witness, the defendant collected the whole purport of the loan. The defendant exempted the non-party 10,000 won of the face value of April 10, 1990, 100, 10, 1000 won of the issue date, 10,000 won of the issue date, 190,000 won of the receipt date, the place of payment, the Bank of Korea's branch, and 00,000 won of the bill in blank, and the part of the other non-party 1-2, the defendant requested the plaintiff on April 16, 1990, and the non-party 1-party 1, 190, who refused to pay the bill to the plaintiff at the same time as the above new bill of exchange.

In this regard, although the defendant was prepared to distribute the above bill to others, it was argued that it was lost at that time. However, even if the defendant's assertion was made, the above bill had the appearance of the blank bill at the time when the defendant lost possession. Therefore, in light of the distribution securities of the bill even though it was not completed and the defendant did not deliver it, it is reasonable to view that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the obligation under the promissory note as the issuer, unless there was any bad faith or gross negligence in acquiring the bill in accordance with Articles 16 and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and in this case, there is no evidence to prove that there was gross negligence, the above argument by the defendant is groundless.

Thus, the defendant, the issuer of the above bill, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of twenty-five percent per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 20, 1991 to the date of full payment on the record that the application for change of the cause of claim was delivered to the defendant on January 28, 191, as claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition with a provisional execution declaration attached pursuant to Article 199 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Noh Jae-in