The burden of proving the granting of a supplementary right to the blank bill

In the case of a blank Promissory Notes, the burden of proving that it is not a blank Promissory Notes, but an incomplete Promissory Notes, which is invalid, is not an incomplete Promissory Notes.

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

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2351 Decided February 28, 1967

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and four defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na3896 delivered on June 30, 1983

The part of the judgment below regarding the conjunctive claim is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The appeal against the main claim in the judgment below is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the conjunctive claim by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's signature and seal of the issuer non-party 1 was affixed to the non-party 1's address, Jung-gu, Incheon, the address of the plaintiff 1, and the place of payment was the (name omitted) Incheon Incheon, the place of payment, and the part was holding a promissory note which is all white paper, and the issue date was set at 20 million won on April 25, 1978, and the payee column was stated as the plaintiff, and the payment date was set at 1983.24, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City City City City City Mayor, and the court below determined that the non-party 1, except the evidence that the court below did not believe, stated his name and seal and the place of payment, and stated only the name and seal of the issuer and the place of payment, and delivered the plaintiff a supplementary bill to the plaintiff, or the plaintiff was granted a supplementary right as stated in the above bill. Thus, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

However, in the case of a blank bill, it is reasonable to interpret that the issuer does not issue the issuer with the intent to supplement the blank bill, which is not a blank bill, but an incomplete bill. (See Supreme Court Decision 66Da2351 delivered on February 28, 1967) The judgment of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's conjunctive claim on the premise that the plaintiff, the addressee, has the burden of proof as to the granting of the supplementary bill, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the burden of proof as to the granting of the supplementary bill, and thus, the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. The grounds of appeal against the primary claim by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 25, 1978, the court below rejected the entries in Gap evidence No. 6 (certificate) and the contents of Gap evidence No. 5 (bill of Pledge) on the premise that non-party 1 purchased houses equivalent to KRW 20,00,00 at the time of retirement of the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and agreed to do so at the same time, and that the plaintiff's primary claim is consistent with this, and the testimony of non-party 2 and the result of the plaintiff's personal examination at the court below cannot be trusted, and it is not sufficient to recognize the contents of each evidence No. 5 (bill of Pledge). The contents of each evidence No. 1 are not supporting the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence supporting the plaintiff's assertion. Accordingly, the court below's fact-finding of the lawsuit is justified in light of the evidence relation and its explanation at the time of the court below's fact-finding and it cannot be said that there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the grounds for appeal. The argument is nothing in this paper.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the conjunctive claim shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the appeal concerning the main claim shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal concerning that part shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)