Plaintiff (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Bank (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Song Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 26, 2012

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,028,767,122 as well as 6% per annum from November 8, 2012 to December 17, 2012, and 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment day.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant held that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,028,767,122 won with 6% interest per annum from April 3, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Occurrence of promissory notes;

The Defendant Bank made a promissory note number 1, 2,514, 383, 561 won at face value, 2,514, 561 won at issue date, 2.2. 2. 2. 2. 2012 at issue date, 2.4. 2. 2. 2, 2012 at issue date, 2. 2. 2, 2, 2, face value (2 omitted), 2, 514, 383, 561 won at issue date, 2, 2, 2, 2012 at face value, 2, 2, 514, 383, 561 won at issue date, 2, 2012 at issue date, 2. 4. 2. 2, 2012 at issue date, each of the promissory notes was issued at issue place, 1, 1, 2, and 2, each of the promissory notes issued at the Defendant Bank.

(b) Endorsement of promissory notes;

1) The first endorsement of the Promissory Notes is an endorsement in blank, which is an endorsement by the non-party company, and even in the second endorsement, the second endorsement by the non-party company is an endorsement in blank, which is an endorsement by the non-party company, and the third endorsement is an endorsement in blank, which is the plaintiff's endorsement.

2) The first endorsement of the bill of promise No. 2 is an endorsement in blank, which is an endorsement by the non-party company, and the second endorsement is an endorsement in blank, which is the Plaintiff’s endorsement.

(c) non-payment and supplementation;

1) The Plaintiff presented each of the Promissory Notes in this case at the place of payment on each payment date, but was rejected on the ground that each of the Promissory Notes was presented for forgery.

2) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit. On November 7, 2012, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Plaintiff entered the name of the Nonparty Company, the first endorsement, in the blank column of each of the instant promissory notes on the third day for pleading of November 7, 2012, and again presented the payment to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (if there is a satisfy number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and significant facts to this court

2. Determination:

(a) Occurrence of a duty to pay bills;

If an endorsement in blank is followed by another endorsement in blank, the endorser who made the endorsement acquires the right in the bill by means of endorsement in blank, and if the last endorsement is in blank, the holder of the bill is presumed to be a lawful holder. Each of the Promissory Notes in this case is recognized as a lawful holder, and the Plaintiff, the holder of each of the Promissory Notes, is presumed to be a lawful holder. In addition, the place of issue and the place of payment and the place of payment of each of the Promissory Notes in blank are all the requirements for the Promissory Notes, but the place of payment and the place of payment are both the blank. However, even if there is no special indication as to the place of payment, if the place of payment is indicated as the place of payment and it is small within a certain area corresponding to the place of payment, the place of payment shall be deemed to be supplemented. In addition, if the place of payment is deemed to be a domestic bill, even if there is no indication as to the place of issuance and the place of payment in this case, it shall not be deemed as an invalid bill.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as the issuer, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, as the bearer, the total face value of each of the Promissory Notes of this case (2,514,383,561 won + 2,514,383,561 won) and damages for delay calculated by applying each ratio of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from November 8, 2012 to December 17, 2012, the date following the date when the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal to the Defendant after filling up the column for the payee of each of the Promissory Notes of this case.

The Plaintiff asserts that each of the Promissory Notes in this case is a bearer note and can seek payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes from April 2, 2012, which is the maturity of each of the Promissory Notes in question, without filling the payee's column. However, according to the evidence Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each of the Promissory Notes in this case was issued as a cover note. It is difficult to conclude that each of the Promissory Notes in this case must be treated as the same as the legal bearer bearer deposit. There is no other evidence to find otherwise, while each of the Promissory Notes in this case satisfies the principal requirements of Article 75 of the Promissory Notes Act, including maturity, issue date, issuer's name and seal, etc., and at the bottom, it is difficult to find the Plaintiff's explanation that the payment of the Promissory Notes in this case does not constitute a delay of payment under the Promissory Notes in this case's terms and conditions, and thus, it cannot be viewed that it constitutes an omission of payment of the Promissory Notes in this case's terms and conditions.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant, in collusion with the non-party 2, 3, and the non-party 1, who is the representative director of the non-party company, committed the act of borrowing KRW 4.75 million from the defendant bank as collateral after forging each of the Promissory Notes in question. The plaintiff also actively participated in the process of issuing each of the Promissory Notes and acquired each of the Promissory Notes in the process of recognizing the crime of fraud. Thus, the defendant issued each of the Promissory Notes in the above manner, and thus revoked the issuance of the Promissory Notes, and the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim because it can be asserted against the cancellation because there was a year against the defendant or gross negligence.

Therefore, in the case of cancelling the issuance of a bill on the grounds of defects in the declaration of intent such as fraud, it is reasonable to view that the declaration of intent of cancellation can be made not only to the other party directly to the act of issuing the bill but also to the holder who directly acquires the bill from the other party to the act of issuing the bill and requests the payment of the bill. However, the cancellation of such declaration of intent cannot be asserted against the former holder in good faith. Since the third party refers to a person other than the other party to the act of issuing the bill, the issuer can express his/her intention of cancellation against the holder who is not the other party to the act of issuing the bill, so it is not possible for the issuer to assert the effect of cancellation regardless of the holder's good faith or bad faith. The defense that there is defects in the declaration of intention such as fraud is merely a personal defense against the other party to the act of issuing the bill. Thus, unless the holder acquired the bill with the knowledge that it would prejudice the debtor, even if the holder had knowledge of the fact by gross negligence, it cannot be asserted against the previous holder (see Supreme Court Decision 196Da.

In this case, the Plaintiff’s year, namely, whether each of the Promissory Notes in this case may be used for the crime of fraud, such as Nonparty 2 and 1, as alleged above, and whether it is recognized that the Defendant acquired the Promissory Notes with the knowledge of the fact that the Defendant would incur damages by acquiring each of the said Promissory Notes, it is not sufficient to accept the said Promissory Notes alone, and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. In addition, even if there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff as seen earlier, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Park Jong-young