The burden of proving the granting of a supplementary right to the blank bill (=the issuer)

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

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

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2351 Decided February 28, 1967 (Gong1984, 1117)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Han River, Attorneys Park Jong-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 2000Na43870 Delivered on December 22, 2000

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the defendants issued the Promissory Notes in this case due to the plaintiff's coercion or fraud, and even if that is not so, the plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes in this case on the condition that the plaintiff did not file a criminal complaint against the non-party 1, and the plaintiff violated this provision and thus the plaintiff's complaint against the non-party 1 would lose its validity due to the fulfillment of the cancellation condition." In light of the records, the court below's above measures are acceptable and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. In light of the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the fulfillment of the conditions for fraud

2. On the third ground for appeal

In the case of a blank Promissory Notes, the issue of whether the issuer or the holder of the blank Promissory Notes was issued as the intent to supplement the blanksory Notes shall not be issued with the intent of the issuer to supplement the blank Notes. In other words, there is a burden of proving that it is invalid as an incomplete Promissory Notes not a blank Promissory Notes (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1585, May 22, 1984).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that "at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case, the defendants pay the amount corresponding to the bill of this case as long as the bill of this case was issued, and did not state the date of its issuance and the date of its payment." Thus, there is no evidence to support the defendants' assertion that the payment date of the Promissory Notes in this case was not yet due, and as long as the defendants issued the Promissory Notes in blank with the remaining stated matters except the face value in blank to the plaintiff, the court below granted the plaintiff the authority to supplement the blank portion. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

The court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the remaining debt of the non-party 1, which is the cause debt of the Promissory Notes of this case, is merely 93 million won. Rather, the plaintiff loaned 148 million won to the non-party 1 based on its employment evidence, and the defendant 2 settled accounts on May 2, 1998, and confirmed that the total debt of this case was 125 million won excluding 30 million won from the total debt of the non-party 2's loan of this case with the non-party 2's loan of this case, but the defendant 1 and the non-party 1 were able to find out the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, including the amount of loan of this case of 30 million won and interest on the loan of this case of 30 million won with the non-party 2 related loan of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in light of the facts established and the records.

In addition, the records revealed that the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 377.4 million from Nonparty 1 on a multiple occasions, but as a result of the settlement including the above amount in the lower order of May 198, 198, the above non-party 1’s debt amount was determined as KRW 150 million, and the Defendants issued the Promissory Notes. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is deemed to have been determined as including the above amount in the repayment of KRW 377.4 million or the deduction of KRW 37.7.4 million and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment below which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)