(a) Whether the amount of promissory note falls under the foregoing Article;

(b) Whether the amount of the blank bill is gross negligence in the acquisition of the bill, if the blank bill is filled and the issuer fails to verify the contents of the supplementary bill;

(a) The amount column of a promissory note shall not constitute forgery of a bill under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, if any;

(b) If the sum of a bill is supplemented by the instruction of the person authorized to guarantee when acquiring the blank bill, the purchaser shall be grossly negligent, unless special circumstances are demonstrated.

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

Plaintiff

Defendant Kim-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju District Court Decision 77Na102 delivered on October 6, 1977

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

(1) The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

(A) Determination of the first ground for appeal;

According to the records, the court below's decision that recognized that the defendant granted the non-party the right to supplement the blank portion of the Promissory Notes in question as stated in the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be concluded that there is an illegal cause, such as the plaintiff's failure to submit legal opinions in the original judgment and the non-exercise of right

(B) Determination on the second ground;

According to the records, the court below's disposition that recognized that the amount exceeding 136,00 won, which is the limit of the supplementary right granted to the bill of this case, has been unjustly filled with 3,50,000 won in the face amount, is just and the court below's disposition that held that the bill of this case constitutes abuse of the supplementary right under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act and does not constitute the above Article of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act is also justified

Because it means forgery of a bill means manipulating the name of the person who committed the bill in the name of the bill. In the case of an unfair supplement of a blank bill, the person who committed the act of a bill completed due to the supplement is the person who committed the original bill and the abuse of the right to supplement is merely different from the agreed contents, and therefore, the concept of forgery of a bill and abuse of the right to supplement is different from each other. The original decision in this paper is dealt with in terms of criminal law, and the judgment is dealt with in terms of criminal law, and it shall be determined in accordance with Article 77 (2) and Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act for the person who acquired the illegally supplemented bill, and it shall not be determined that the application of Article 77 (2) and Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act is excluded from the application of the provisions of the laws on the acquisition of a blank bill in the

(C) Determination on the fifth point;

The judgment of the court below on the assertion of the lawsuit is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the mandatory law of the lawsuit, or in the misapprehension of the legal principle on the act of anti-social order, or in the misapprehension of the false declaration of intent agreed with the unfair legal act

(D) Determination on the third and fourth grounds;

According to Articles 77(2) and 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, a person who issued a blank bill shall be held liable to a holder who has acquired a blank bill which is different from that agreed in advance with respect to the right to supplement the bill in bad faith or without gross negligence. In this case, as recognized by the court below, the amount of the Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 3,50,000 by the order of the above non-party who has been granted the right to supplement the blank bill from the Defendant (as recognized by the court below, making the non-party supplement the amount amount). Thus, if the Plaintiff acquired the bill in bad faith or without gross negligence, the Plaintiff would be protected pursuant to the above provisions. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to bona fide acquisition of the blank bill in the original judgment.

Therefore, we will examine the decision of the court below that the plaintiff acquired the bill of exchange due to the gross negligence under the above provision of the law, which rejected the defendant's defense.

The defendant's defense is that "the plaintiff had experience in receiving higher education from the above non-party who had been engaged in the trade in bills, and that was approved by being issued several times from the above non-party, and the amount in blank was not stated in blank, but the amount in blank as stated in the bill was large as 3,50,000 won or less, and the defendant's acquisition of the bill in this case was not caused by gross negligence although he could easily inquire about the fact that a blank bill was issued and the limit on supplementation of the amount can be confirmed by telephone, etc. in the same case as the bill in this case." The judgment of the court below on this issue is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff was gross negligence on the part of the defendant's assertion.

However, if the blank portion of the blank bill is divided into two types, it is normal to limit the scope of the blank portion, which is the most important factor, such as the case where the amount of the blank note becomes blank, and one is the case where the addressee is in blank. In particular, it is normal to limit the blank note, and the amount of the blank note, which is the blank portion, is a case where the payee's blank note is filled with blank. If the plaintiff's name was filled by the order of the above non-party at the time when the plaintiff acquired it, if the plaintiff did not directly inquire of the name and seal of the original bill, it shall be deemed that the acquirer was gross negligence, barring any special circumstance. Although the defendant's defense stated above is pride that the acquisition of the bill was caused by gross negligence, the court below rejected the defendant's defense, and if the defendant's defense was accepted, it shall be clear that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to gross negligence, and the defendant's defense will be accepted as a result of an agreement, which affected the defendant's appeal.

(2) Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)