The status of the holder of a bill, if the endorsement of a Promissory Notes is made after the lapse of the time limit for presentment for payment.

If an endorsement of a promissory note has been made after the lapse of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment, the holder of the bill may set up against the drawer as a transferee of nominative claim even if the assignment of

Articles 20 and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 450 of the Civil Code

Directors Hong

Kim Sung-sub

Seoul District Court Decision 63Na79 delivered on September 25, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

First of all, we examine the grounds for appeal by the defendant Kim Ik.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1, it is against the rules of evidence that the court below held that the promissory note No. 4,5,8 and the testimony of the evidence No. 4,5,8 are not the financing bill issued by the defendant, and that the promissory note No. 2 (Evidence No. 2) is not the financing bill issued by the defendant, by adopting the testimony of the least witness who is inconsistent with the statements No. 4,6, and the testimony of the evidence No. 4 and No. 6, and by rejecting the testimony of the witness No. 5 and the witness No.

However, if the evidence pointed out as a result of the record is examined in detail, it does not seem that the court below erred in the process of cooking evidence or the exercise of free evaluation securities as mentioned above.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below did not adopt the statement No. 2 (written appraisal). It is also inconsistent with the rules of evidence. In addition, the defendant filed an application for the appraisal of the part of which the defendant was ordered to leave the office from the defendant, and the court below did not examine the only method of evidence that the defendant rejected the application, which led to an incomplete hearing.

However, it cannot be said that the court below did not believe that the evidence evidence No. 2 was erroneous in the evidence evidence, and that the court below rejected the application for appraisal referred to in the essay, and it cannot be said that it is the only rejection of the defendant's application for evidence examination as to the defendant's argument. Thus, this issue is groundless.

(3) As to the Defendant’s claim asserted to offset the Defendant’s claim as set-off, it is clear that the highest part of the Decree recognizes that the Defendant received 300,000 won of the building materials owned by the Defendant from the Defendant, and in the description of the evidence No. 6, it is the fact that the highest part of the purchase materials is in the nature that the Defendant shall be repaid to the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the defense as long as there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s claim.

However, with respect to the acquisition of building materials from the Defendant as mentioned above, the person’s trace does not seem to be anywhere in the records, and even if it is based on the entry of Gap evidence No. 6 (Contract for Construction Work), there is no evidence to acknowledge the same facts as the arguments mentioned above. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and no error exists.

Next, we examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the Defendant asserted that “No notification is given by the transferor of the claim, and the Defendant also does not consent to the transfer of the claim.” The lower court erred by rendering a judgment with a promissory note gold claim, and if the lower judgment transferred a nominative claim, only the transferor’s notification of the

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the court below deemed that the endorsement of the Promissory Notes was made after the lapse of the time limit for protesting for non-payment, and therefore, the validity of the assignment of claims is recognized only as valid. Thus, in such a case, even if the endorser notifies the assignment of claims or does not consent of the drawer, the holder of the Promissory Notes may oppose the drawer as the assignee of the nominative Claim, even if he did not consent of the drawer, and therefore, it is not possible to appoint the bill as a theory whole misunderstanding

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense that the bill of this case is a loan bill without a cause obligation and the defendant's defense that the bill of this case was higher than 11,3234 won in Young-si will cause contradictions at the time of reasoning.

However, the judgment of the court below is just and it does not think that there is an error in law.

(3) As to the ground of appeal No. 3, this issue is not re-written, since it is already identical to the above-mentioned (3).

(4) As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the fact that the plaintiff did not have taken over the claim, and was entrusted solely with the purpose of having the plaintiff conduct litigation, or the assignment of the claim is false, unless otherwise,.

However, it is not possible to employ the reasons such as the argument, because the defendant's marks alleged until the conclusion of the argument in the court below are not shown in the records.

(5) As to the ground of appeal No. 5, although this claim was already withdrawn once (Seoul District Court 1961Ga261 case), the plaintiff's re-instigation of a suit is contrary to the principle of prohibition of re-instigation of a suit.

However, there is no proof that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the claim of this case in this case, and there is no proof to do so.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak, Red Mag-Jak, Live-Jak, Live-P