Cases where there is an error of misunderstanding the effective date of a blank bill;

The act of a blank bill is established under the condition that the requirements of the blank be supplemented after the maturity, and the act of a blank bill becomes effective only when the conditions for the supplement of the requirements are fulfilled, and therefore all the act of the bill in the blank bill, such as endorsement, takes effect at this time, and the effect of the supplement cannot be seen as retroactive to the fulfillment of the condition. Therefore, even if an endorsement is made before the maturity of the blank bill, it cannot be seen that it is only effective after the maturity when the blank is filled.

Embal nets

Maximum British Uniforms

The financial support for the first instance court, the Jeonju District Court Decision 65Na89 delivered on May 24, 1965

The part of the defendant's complaint in the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court.

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant issued to the non-party 1 a promissory note indicating the payment of KRW 100,000 at par value 17 March 17, 1963 and the place of issuance for the same month to the non-party 10,000, in blank, and borrowed KRW 10,000 from the non-party 19 to the non-party 1, and issued the non-party 19 to the non-party 1 without stating the name of the endorser for the purpose of securing this obligation, and that the non-party 1 transferred the bill to the plaintiff by simple delivery to secure this amount of KRW 10,00 from the plaintiff 1963 to the non-party 1,2710,000 to the non-party 10,000 to the non-party 1, which had no effect on the non-party 3's act of paying the bill to the non-party 1,064 to the non-party 1.

Therefore, the court below's determination that filling up the blank bill of this case was confirmed by the plaintiff. Thus, this is only effective as an endorsement after maturity, and it is only effective as an ordinary assignment of claim, and if the repayment to the non-party Park Young-young by the defendant constitutes the repayment of the cause of the bill of this case (the purport of the argument is the same; c) it can be asserted against the plaintiff as a repayment to the non-party Park Young-young by the defendant (the purport of the argument is the same). Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the supplement

Therefore, the appeal Nos. 2 and the appeal No. 3 are dismissed, and the decision of the court below is omitted. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench pursuant to Article 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court