In case where a person who received a bill by endorsement in blank transfers it by delivery without filling in blank, whether it can be set up against the present holder who received the bill for reasons which could not set up against him/her (negative)

The transferee of a bill by endorsement in blank does not bear the responsibility of recourse as an endorser if the bill is transferred by way of delivery without filling in blank, but there is no change in the position that the transferor was the holder on the bill as the previous holder of the bill. Thus, even though it does not appear as an endorser on the bill, it cannot be asserted against the current holder on the ground that the current holder was aware of the reason at the time of acquisition of the bill, and even if the present holder was transferred by the bill after preparation of a protest for refusal of payment or after the expiration of the period of time of preparation of a protest for refusal of payment, it cannot be asserted against the present holder on the ground that the transferor had acted in good faith.

Articles 13, 17 and 20 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu20740 Decided April 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 1144), Supreme Court Decision 93Da58721 Decided May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 160), Supreme Court Decision 94Da50489 Decided January 20, 195 (Gong195Sang, 896)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Ha Chang-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The administrator and the non-party administrator and one other (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na61998 delivered on December 13, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below held that the New Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "New Industries") received a discount by endorsement, transfer, and transfer the bill of this case issued by the two LeM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "New Industries Co., Ltd.") before the reorganization of the company to Dongnam Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "New Industries Co., Ltd."), Dongnam Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Bank") on June 29, 1998, by means of a decision to transfer contract under the former Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry (as of June 29, 1998, the agreement related to financial transactions, such as deposit and loan of the company, etc., was transferred to the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Bank"), and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal or in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. A transferee of a bill by endorsement in blank does not bear the duty of recourse as an endorser if it is transferred by India without filling the blank, but there is no change in the position of the holder on the bill that he transferred his rights as the front of the current holder. Although it does not appear as an endorser on the bill, as the current holder was bona fide at the time of the acquisition of the bill, it cannot be asserted against the present holder on the ground that the current holder was aware of the reason at the time of the acquisition of the bill. This is the same even if the present holder was transferred the bill after the completion of the protest or the expiration of the period of the protest for non-payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da58721, May 10, 1994). Accordingly, even if the plaintiffs were to receive the bill after the expiration of the period of non-payment or non-payment, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the plaintiffs' defense against the previous holder of the bill in this case, as it did not know that it had been issued by the plaintiffs on the ground of appeal No.

3. Meanwhile, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs' claim in this case constitutes an abuse of rights or is not permissible against the good faith principle is justifiable, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)