Effect of endorsement after the expiration of the period for drawing up a protest of non-payment of a Promissory Notes

If a bill is endorsed or transferred after the protest for non-payment is drawn up or after the lapse of the period for drawing up the instrument, the drawer may make all personal defenses against the endorser.

Articles 14, 17, and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Governing clothes

Kim Jong-jin

Daejeon District Court Decision 62Na903 delivered on April 16, 1963

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by each party.

First of all, the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

The main point of the issue is that the court below found that the promissory note of this case, which the plaintiff received the transfer of endorsement after the maturity, was transferred by endorsement after the maturity of the court below's testimony of the last Kim Jong-nam, and that the promissory note of this case, which the plaintiff received the transfer of endorsement, was recorded retroactively on September 20, 1959. However, each of the above witnesses' testimony is a false statement in light of the contents of the testimony, and it is clear that the testimony of the above witness is a false statement in light of the contents of the testimony. In addition, when the testimony of the court below witness Kim Yong-ran, the court below's decision that the transfer of the promissory note of this case was made before maturity and that the holder who received the endorsement after maturity can oppose the endorser on the grounds that it could oppose the endorser, or that the defendant issued the Promissory note of this case under his personal

However, there is no ground for the testimony of the court below, and according to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below lawfully rejected the testimony of the court below's witness Kim Yong-Nam. The former part of the argument is nothing more than that of the court below, and since the endorsement after the completion of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment or the endorsement after the expiration of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment, the drawer may make all personal defense against the endorser. According to the reasoning of the court below, since the assignment of endorsement is clearly an endorsement after the expiration of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment, it cannot be said that there was an error of law in the court below which allowed the set-off objection against the defendant's endorser, and the fact that it was set-off between the endorser and the non-party Taeyang Yang-yang corporation was legally established, there is no error in the law of law in the court below's disposition.

Next, the defendant's attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 of this case, it is clear that the non-party Kim Yong-dong was prosecuted for forging the Promissory Notes of this case. Thus, the rejection of the defense of this case on the ground that the non-party Kim Yong-dong was presumed not guilty until the conviction became final and conclusive even though the Promissory Notes of this case was forged.

However, even if a criminal conviction has become final and conclusive, the fact of the conviction is not binding on the civil fact-finding, but it is possible to employ or not to employ it with free and mental evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that the facts have been proved only by the fact that it was prosecuted in the civil procedure. Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the fact that the promissory note of this case was forged on the suspicion that the non-party Kim Yong-kuk was guilty.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The main point of the argument is that the court below erred in recognizing only 42,00 won between the non-party Kim Yong-dong and the non-party Kim Yong-dong's failure to recognize the loss of 20,000 won among the offset defense, and where adopting and rejecting part of the documentary evidence and witness's testimony, the court below's rejection of part of the documentary evidence and witness's testimony is illegal without any explanation that there is no reason to explain it.

However, the fact-finding court may adopt any part of the witness's testimony and reject the part in such a case, and there is no need to explain the reasons for its adoption and rejection in such a case. Accordingly, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the court below's measures since the court below recognized only the offset of 42,00 won among the witness's testimony as to the set-off of 20,000 won by the defendant's 42,00 won and 20,000 won, and did not explain the reasons for the rejection in the absence of the witness's testimony in relation to the set-off of 20,000 won without the witness's testimony. According to the contents of Eul evidence 3, the above 20,000 won cannot be said to be erroneous in the misapprehension of the court below's disposition since there is no

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Madern (Presiding Judge) Madern Madern Madern Madern Madon