(a) Where a lawful holder of a bill has transferred the bill by stating a person voluntarily before and after his own bill as an interim endorser, whether the transferee of the bill legally acquires the right of the bill;

(b) Validity of the regulations on business operation of mutual savings and finance companies which prohibit discount of financing bills, or the regulations on the discount of loans and bills;

(a) In case the holder of a bill has transferred the bill by entering himself in front of and after his endorsement a person before and after his endorsement as an interim endorser, such transferee shall be legally entitled to the bill as long as the transferor is a legitimate holder;

B. Each of the regulations on the operation of mutual savings and finance companies and the regulations on the discount of loans and bills by mutual savings and finance companies, which prohibit the so-called discount of financing bills, shall not be deemed to be an effective regulation, and thus, it shall not be denied even if the acquisition of promissory notes is in violation of such regulations.

(c) Although a person who issued a financing bill is not liable to the beneficiary, it cannot be asserted against the third party who received the financing bill by defense that the financing bill was a financing bill issued without being asked in good faith or bad faith, unless there are special circumstances otherwise.

(a) Articles 16(1) and 16(2)(b) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 11 subparag. 5(c) of the courts, such as mutual savings and finance companies;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Da35261 delivered on December 10, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 348) (Gong1994Sang, 348). Supreme Court Decision 87Da1836 delivered on November 22, 198 (Gong1989, 18). Supreme Court Decision 79Da479 delivered on October 30, 1979 (Gong1979, 12305), Supreme Court Decision 93Da58721 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 160), 94Da50489 delivered on January 20, 195 (Gong195Sang, 896)

Secretary-General of the Mutual Savings Bank

Defendant Kim In-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na48860 delivered on October 14, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below as to the point that the theory of lawsuit points out (the acquisition of a bill of commitment and the rejection of the defendant's assertion about the year of the plaintiff's year) shall be considered to be correct in light of relevant evidence and records, and there is no error of law that misleads the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit

As determined by the court below, if the non-party 1 received a blank note from the non-party 2 and supplemented it with "non-party 3" within the scope of the supplementary right conferred upon it, and then arbitrarily stated the face value and the payee as "non-party 3", and made the second endorsement with the non-party 4 as the endorsee, and then transferred it to the plaintiff with the non-party 5's own endorsement with the non-party 4 as the endorsee, the non-party 1 who transferred the promissory note is the legitimate holder at the time of transfer, the plaintiff who is the transferee shall be legally entitled to the right of the bill (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da35261 delivered on December 10, 193). The judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's assertion as to the above promissory note, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's assertion of good faith in the above case.

The provisions of the Regulations on Business Operation of Mutual Aid and Finance Company and the Regulations on Loans and Discount of Bills by Mutual Aid and Finance Company, which prohibit the discount of so-called financing bills, are not only only the regulatory provisions but also not the effective provisions, and thus, the judicial effect of the acquisition of promissory notes cannot be denied even because they violated such provisions (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1836, Nov. 22, 198). In addition, the issuer of a financing bill is not liable for the bills against the party who received the financing bill, but also the third party who received the financing bill cannot stand up against the defense that it was issued without compensation in good faith and bad faith, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 79Da479, Oct. 30, 197; 93Da58721, May 10, 1994; 93Da58721, May 10, 1994).

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the 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 on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)