logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1964. 5. 12. 선고 63아55 판결
[약속어음금][집12(1)민,067]
Main Issues

With respect to the series of endorsementss, the cancelled endorsement is regarded as non-existent from the beginning, regardless of whether or not the cancellation is before or after the expiration of the period for protest for payment.

Summary of Judgment

For the series of endorsement, an endorsement which has been cancelled is considered to have never existed even before and after the expiration of the time limit for drawing up the protest for non-payment.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 16 (1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Kim Ho-su

Defendant Special Appellant

1.2 2 others

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 63Da171 delivered on October 18, 1963

Text

The special dismissal is dismissed.

Expenses incurred in special consolation shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

The defendants' special grounds of appeal are examined as to the defendants' special grounds of appeal.

For the series of endorsement, the cancellation of this bill shall be deemed to have never existed before and after the expiration of the period for drawing up the protest for non-payment. Therefore, the court below's decision, which rejected the defendants' assertion that the endorsement of this bill against the plaintiff as to the plaintiff as to the above union members, was cancelled at the expiration of the period for drawing up the protest for non-payment, since the plaintiff received the promissory note from the non-party union members on July 5, 1961, which was the date for drawing up the protest for non-payment, and the endorsement of this bill was cancelled at the expiration of the period for drawing up the protest for non-payment, is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the series of endorsement of the promissorysory note,

Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed in accordance with Articles 408-2 and (2), 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the burden of litigation costs is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95, 93, and 89 of the same Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Dog-Gyeong (Presiding Justice)

arrow