[1] Whether an addressee can transfer a registered bill only by delivery (negative)

[2] The validity of endorsement and assignment after the expiration of the period for drawing up the protest for non-payment

[1] If the purport of the lower court is to the effect that a simple delivery of the bill was made by transferring the right on the bill, it is unreasonable to recognize that the bill can be transferred only by the delivery, since the bill can be transferred only in the case of delivery (delivery) and the bill issued in the form of either to bearer form or to bearer form, contrary to the provisions of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the last endorsement is limited to the bill endorsed in the form of bearer form or to the bill endorsed in blank.

[2] If the endorser, after the lapse of the time limit for drawing up a protest for refusal of payment of the bill, cancels the description in the name of the endorser and instead obtains the name and seal of the endorser in the name of the endorser, this is only effective, and the obligor of the bill may set up against the endorser all personal defenses against the endorser.

[1] Article 14 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 20 of the Bills of Exchange and

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da9764 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1655), Supreme Court Decision 96Da4393 delivered on December 20, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 378) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 63Da331 delivered on August 22, 196 (No. 11-2, 85), Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1293 delivered on September 27, 1983 (Gong1983, 1576)

Plaintiff

Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Yu Soo-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 95Na6707 delivered on February 8, 1996

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on evidence of this case, issued one copy of the Promissory Notes issued by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1'.

Therefore, the blank endorsement, recognized as a valid method of transferring rights under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, does not include the method of delivering an endorsement without stating the endorser, and even according to the factual relations recognized by the court below, the Plaintiff received the bill of this case from the non-party company and held it, and the first endorsement in the name of the Plaintiff was made. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the non-party company transferred it by a blank endorsement. If the purport of the court below is that the simple delivery of the bill of this case is a transfer of rights under the bill of this case, it can only be deemed that the bill of this case was issued in the form of a bearer or an instruction, but the bill of this case was issued in the form of a blank with the bill of this case and the bill of this case, which is limited to the bill of this case being endorsed in the form of the last endorsement or in blank (see Articles 12(3), 14(2)3, 77(1)1, 94, 196, 296, 396, etc.).

Meanwhile, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff cancelled the entry in the column of endorser in the name of the plaintiff after the lapse of the period for drawing up the protest for non-payment of the bill of this case and instead obtained the name and seal of the non-party company in the name of the payee. Thus, the validity of the assignment of designated assignment is only effective, and the debtor of the bill can oppose all personal defenses against the endorsers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 63Da331, Aug. 22, 1963; 81Meu1293, Sept. 27, 1983). Thus, the defendant can oppose the plaintiff as a defense of non-party company's non-payment of the bill of this case.

Therefore, the lower court, which determined otherwise, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of transferring rights under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act and the endorsement after the lapse of the period for drawing up a protest for non-payment, and as such, it is apparent that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, it cannot be relieved of the reversal without

Therefore, the appeal of this case is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)