In cases where a bill is distributed after signing and sealing on the bill as the drawer, and the bill is stolen, lost, etc., whether the originator is liable for the obligation on the bill to the holder (affirmative with qualification)

A person who, with an intention to distribute a bill, has signed and sealed the bill as the drawer and affixed its external appearance on the bill shall, even if the bill was distributed without his/her intention due to theft, loss, etc., bear obligations under the bill as the drawer, unless the holder asserts that he/she has acquired the bill by bad faith or gross negligence, the bill has been acquired.

Articles 7, 9, and 16 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

Korea Exchange Bank (Attorney Jeong Young-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 98Na9841 delivered on May 28, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the defects in the issuance of the bill

A person who, with an intention to distribute a bill, has signed and sealed the bill as the drawer and affixed its external appearance on the bill shall bear the obligation as the drawer, unless the holder asserts that the bill has been acquired by bad faith or gross negligence, for the holder who has trusted the external appearance of the bill in series of endorsement and acquired it without his/her intention due to theft, loss, etc.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant recognized that the amount of the Promissory Notes in this case was in blank and signed and sealed as the issuer. Meanwhile, the plaintiff acquired the Promissory Notes in this case, which was completed after filling up blanks, at discount from the non-party. Thus, unless the defendant asserts and proves that there was bad faith or gross negligence in acquiring the Promissory Notes in this case, the defendant who signed and sealed the Promissory Notes for the purpose of distributing the Promissory Notes in this case and signed and sealed as the issuer shall be deemed to bear the obligation of the issuer as the lawful holder of the Promissory Notes.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether to issue a bill of exchange or not. The ground of appeal on this part is not accepted.

2. On the violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete hearing

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on this point on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff acquired the Promissory Notes in bad faith or gross negligence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. This part of the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)