Completion date of exercising the right to supplement a blank bill;

The right to supplement a blank bill may be exercised even after the due date until the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the right to supplement a blank bill shall be exercised only until the closing of argument, if a lawsuit is filed against the issuer who is the principal debtor.

Articles 10 and 77(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da1576 delivered on December 11, 1972, 80Da26956 delivered on April 14, 1981

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Industrial Bank of Korea

Defendant-Appellant No. 50

Changwon District Court Decision 93Na8409 delivered on July 14, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The right to supplement a blank bill may be exercised even after the due date until the expiration of the statute of limitations, and in the case of filing a lawsuit claiming the amount of the bill against the issuer, the principal debtor, the right to supplement shall be exercised only until the closing of argument (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da26956, Apr. 14, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 72Da1576, Dec. 11, 1972). According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff presented the payment to the defendant who is the issuer, as the issuer, by supplementing the place of issue and the address of the issuer during the proceeding in the court below, the plaintiff's exercise of the right to supplement the bill shall be exercised within a legitimate period, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles

2. On the second ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense is justified and there is no error of misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the paper paper, and there is no reason to hold that the plaintiff acquired the bill of this case without knowledge or gross negligence by the non-party.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)