The filling of blank bills and the time of establishment of the act of bills

In a blank bill, it shall be strictly distinguished from the time when the act of filling the blank and the act of filling the blank itself is established, and the rights on the bill cannot be exercised without filling the blank, but the time when the act of filling the blank can not be deemed to be the time when the act of filling the blank, and the time when the act of filling the blank shall be determined as the time when

Article 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes

Supreme Court en banc Decision 68Da1176 Decided August 31, 1971

Plaintiff

Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 78Na847 delivered on October 19, 1979

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below concluded that the defendant issued one promissory note at par value 4,00,000 and the place of payment, and the place of payment, all of which were paid at 1976 August 20, 1976, to the Geum River Transportation Co., Ltd., and the non-party company issued one promissory note as Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The above non-party company stated the plaintiff as the endorsement as of July 30, 1976 in the column of the above promissory note and affixed the representative director's seal and transferred the endorsement to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, around October 20, 1978, entered the endorser of the above endorsement as "non-party representative director of the Geum River Transportation Co., Ltd., Ltd." to supplement the name of the endorser. However, the above endorsement becomes effective only after the expiration of the plaintiff's supplementary right of payment, which is the date of expiration of the due date of the due date of the endorsement, and it is not effective after the due date of the last day of July 27, 197, 197.

2. However, as a matter of strict distinction between the time to fill the blank and the time to set up the bill itself, the right to the blank can not be exercised without filling the blank, but the time to set up the bill cannot be deemed as the time to fill the blank, and the time to set up the bill itself must be determined as the time to set the time to set up the bill itself (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da1176 delivered on August 31, 1971). Therefore, the court below held that the endorsement takes effect on the date to fill the blank, without confirming the date of actual endorsement as above, without confirming the date of endorsement as above, shall be in violation of the above party members' precedents and by misunderstanding the legal principles on the act of filling the blank, which led to the failure to exhaust all deliberations, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from the reversal of the bill, with the merit in this regard.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)