In a blank endorsement, filling up the blank section of the holder of a promissory note with the blank, the time and time of such filling, and filing a judicial claim without setting aside the bill, and interrupting prescription.

(a) The addressee of a bill may supplement the bill even after the completion of prescription;

(b) For a judicial claim based on rights on a bill, the interruption of prescription shall be effective even if the bill is not fixed.

Articles 77(1)1 and 77(1)8 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Park Jong-young (Attorney Kim Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Heading area (Attorney Lee Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 4292No642, 643 delivered on April 21, 1960

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The portion of the appeal against the defendant among the costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The Plaintiff’s final appeal by the Plaintiff is reversed, and the reversed part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and defendant's attorney are as stated in the grounds for each appeal.

1. According to the original judgment on the defendant 1 and 2's grounds of appeal, the court below did not err in law by examining the following facts: the plaintiff took over the 5 million won portion of the bill of this case from the witness Gap evidence No. 1 on August 28, 4288, the date of payment due to the testimony of the witness Park Young-hee on August 28, 4288, the date of payment due to the plaintiff Lee Young-hee's testimony; the plaintiff's refusal of payment to the defendant on the due date; and the witness's testimony was clearly rejected; and the above evidence was clearly rejected by the witness Kim Jong-sik's testimony on the part of the plaintiff Kim Young-chul's Kim Jong-sik's Kim Jong-sik's testimony. Thus, the court below did not err in examining the above evidence on the part of the court below's decision that the bill of this case was withdrawn from the advance amount of the bill of this case due to the witness's testimony on the part of the plaintiff Kim Jong-sik's theory's Kim.

2. In light of the reasoning of the Plaintiff’s appeal, the lower court, based on the original judgment, dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on August 29, 201, since the statute of limitations has expired as of August 30, 428, the date of each payment on August 30, 428, 33 years from August 30, 428, and the date of each payment on August 29, 4291, and the Plaintiff supplemented the payee’s disturbance after the completion of the statute of limitations. However, it is obvious that the holder of a bill with blank endorsement did not supplement the blank portion, and only supplement it at that time, there is no limit in that time, and in the case of a judicial claim on a bill, it should be interpreted that the statute of limitations has been interrupted even if the bill of limitations was not fixed, the statute of limitations has expired, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the lawsuit that had been interrupted before the completion of the statute of limitations period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004).

Therefore, since the plaintiff's appeal is well-grounded and it is recognized that the original judgment needs to be deliberated again, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)