Plaintiff (Law Firm Gwangju 21, Attorneys Kim Young-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant corporation

June 27, 2008

Incheon District Court Decision 2007Gadan13069 Decided November 29, 2007

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 6% interest per annum from August 25, 2005 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Grounds for claim;

A. On May 19, 2005, the Defendant issued to Nonparty 1 a bill number of KRW 0023688, face value of KRW 50,000,000, and the date of payment August 24, 2005, Incheon Metropolitan City, the place of payment, the main office of the Korea C&T Bank, the branch office of the Korea C&T Bank, the payee, and a promissory note in blank of the issue date (hereinafter “instant bill”).

B. On the back of the bill of this case, the endorsement made by Nonparty 1, ○○○, ○○○ Nonparty 2, and △△ Timber Nonparty 3 is indicated in order without the entries of each respondent.

C. On August 24, 2005, the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal to the main office of the Korea Cze Bank, Inc., the place of payment, at which the date of the bill of this case was blank, but the payment was refused on the ground of misappropriation.

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff is presumed to be a lawful holder of the bill of this case, since the endorsement from the non-party 1, the payee, to the plaintiff who is the last holder, is continuous, the plaintiff is presumed to be a lawful holder of the bill of this case, the defendant, who is the drawer of the bill of this case, is obligated to pay the bill of this case 50 million won

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is not permissible because it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit (Seoul District Court 2005da84463, Incheon District Court 2006Na4298, Supreme Court 2006Da62003, Supreme Court 2006da6203).

3. Facts of recognition;

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 1 (including each number):

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the bill of this case (the Incheon District Court Decision 2005Da84463) and won a non-litigation. However, the appellate court (the Incheon District Court Decision 2006Na4298) ruled against the defendant on the ground that the date of issue has not been supplemented. The plaintiff filed an appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da62003) but the appellate court's judgment became final and conclusive upon dismissal of the appeal.

B. After that, the Plaintiff supplement the addressee of the instant bill to Nonparty 1 and its date of issuance to Nonparty 1, May 19, 2005, and currently holds it.

4. Determination

A. In a case where the holder of a bill had the right to fill in blank at the time of the closure of the arguments at the fact-finding court, and was able to seek payment of the bill by exercising this right, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it was, it is reasonable to supplement the blank part and, based on this, to claim the same right under the same bill against the defendant of the previous suit by re-instigation of a subsequent suit against the defendant of the previous suit is not allowed by the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit. This is because, in such a case, the previous suit and the subsequent suit are contrary to the purport of the res judicata effect system

B. In the instant case, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment against the Plaintiff by failing to supplement the blank portion until the time of closing argument at the fact-finding court in the previous suit ( Incheon District Court Decision 2005Da84463, Incheon District Court Decision 2006Na4298, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da62003, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da6203), and the judgment became final and conclusive as seen earlier. Accordingly, it is not allowed to seek the payment of the instant bill again after filling the blank portion and seeking payment again by the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff’s act of a bill against a blank bill is established under the condition of suspension that the requirements of the blank bill will be supplemented after the later date. In this case, the Plaintiff asserts that res judicata of the final judgment of the previous suit cannot be effective in the instant lawsuit, in light of the purport of the res judicata system, and the legal nature of the right to supplement blanks after the closing of the fact-finding proceedings, insofar as changes occur in circumstances in circumstances in which the conditions of suspension are fulfilled by filling blanks after the closing of the fact-finding proceedings (Seoul District Court Decision 2005Da8463, Incheon District Court Decision 2006Na4298, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da6203), the res judicata of the final judgment of the previous suit cannot be seen as not affecting the instant lawsuit, which is the subsequent suit, since the exercise of the right to supplement blanks after the closing of the arguments of the

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit without further review. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)