It should be interpreted that the delay of endorsement of a bill requires the presence of form and existence of form.

Endorsement of a bill is required to exist in the form of form and to exist in the form of the bill.

Article 16 of the Bills of Exchange

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 70Na254 delivered on February 2, 1971

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiff's attorney's ground of appeal shall be examined.

It is reasonable to interpret that the delay of endorsement of the bearer note is sufficient to exist in the form and must exist in the form. Nevertheless, the court below recognized that three copies of the Promissory note (Evidence No. 1 through No. 3) are continuous in the form of endorsement, and thus rejected the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff by concluding that three copies of the Promissory Notes are actually issued to Nonparty A, and thus, the Plaintiff is the holder of the Promissory Notes without the continuous series of endorsement. However, as mentioned above, the series of endorsement of the Promissory Notes is sufficient in the form of the series of endorsement, and it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to prove that the series of endorsement is continuous in the form of the Promissory Notes itself, as stated in the judgment below, and even if the Promissory Notes was actually issued to the “A,” it shall be presumed as a lawful holder of the Promissory Notes. However, it cannot be deemed that the issuance of the Promissory Notes with the blank Note No. 1 through No. 3 was possible, and therefore, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon