When payment is refused upon a payment proposal without stating some of the statutory items in the bill, whether to preserve the right of recourse

It is required that the holder of a promissory note, in order to exercise his right of recourse against the endorser, shall make a lawful presentation of payment by a promissory note stating the legal particulars as stipulated in Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, but refuses to make payment. The payment by a promissory note stating some of the above mentioned contents shall not be effective as a lawful presentation of payment unless remedy is provided pursuant to Article 76 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. In such a case, the right of recourse shall not

Articles 43 and 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da214 Decided November 23, 1976 (Gong1977,9626) (Gong1985,1237), August 13, 1985 (Gong1985,1237), Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2011 Decided September 9, 1986 (Gong1986,1301)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court Decision 91Na6762 delivered on October 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order for the holder to exercise his right of recourse against the endorsers, the holder of a promissory note must make a lawful presentation of payment under a promissory note stating the statutory stated in Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act but refuses to make payment. The payment under a promissory note stating some of the above stated matters shall not be effective as a lawful presentation of payment unless the correction is made in accordance with Article 76 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. Therefore, in such a case, the holder cannot exercise his right of recourse (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2011 delivered on September 9, 1986). Accordingly, the court below's decision that dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff's claim cannot exercise his right of recourse on the ground that the holder's refusal to make payment under the above legal principle was made in blank.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)