If a promissory note, the place of issue of which is blank, is presented for payment without supplementation, whether the right of recourse against the endorser can be exercised.

Since the issuance of a promissory note is one of the requirements for a bill, even if the right to supplement is given to the payee or the holder without any indication, it is invalid as a completed bill, and thus, rights on a bill cannot be duly established without the exercise of the right to supplement the bill by the holder on the bill. Therefore, even if the holder presented the bill for payment with such completion, it cannot be a lawful presentation for payment. Therefore, the endorser does not bear the duty of recourse against the holder.

Articles 1, 38, and 44(3) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 4485, Sep. 30, 1994, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 95Na410 delivered on April 28, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

Since the issuance of a promissory note is one of the requirements for a bill, even if the right to supplement is given to the addressee or the holder without any indication, it is invalid as a complete bill, and thus, the right on a bill cannot be duly established without the exercise of the right to supplement the blanksory note. Therefore, even if the holder presents it for payment with such uncompletioned bill, the right on a bill cannot be a lawful presentation of payment. Thus, the endorser does not bear the duty of recourse against the holder (Supreme Court Decision 90Meu7958 delivered on April 23, 191; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1858 delivered on August 9, 198).

See Supreme Court Decision, etc.)

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for bills under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act and the entries in the place of issuance. The argument that the payment system is a legitimate presentation without supplement

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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)