The drawee means whether the holder of a bill duly delivered in blank is entitled to receive the bill, if it is transferred by means of entering a voluntary person in the drawee’s column and in the endorsement column.

The drawee means, when the holder of a bill duly delivered in blank transfers the bill to another person, the drawee is bound to legally transfer his right under the bill, even if the drawee is the endorser of the first endorsement, the first endorsement to whom he is himself is the endorser of the second endorsement, the second endorsement to which he is himself is the endorser of the second endorsement, and the second endorsement to which he is the person who is the endorser, and the second endorsement to which he is the endorser, and the second endorsement to which he is the endorser is the endorser of the third endorsement, and the third endorsement to which the drawee is the drawee is the endorser of the third endorsement, as long as the transferor of the bill is the lawful holder at the time of transfer of the bill.

Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Da35278 delivered on December 10, 1993 (dong) 93Da35285 delivered on December 10, 1993 (dong) 93Da35308 delivered on December 10, 1993 (dong)

Limited Partnership Company and Korea Mutual Savings Bank

Defendant-Appellant Choi-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Jeonju District Court Decision 92Na1929 delivered on June 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The drawee means, when the holder of a bill duly delivered in blank transfers the bill to another person, the drawee is the endorser of the first endorsement, the drawee is the endorser of the second endorsement, the first endorsement from which he is himself is the endorser of the second endorsement, and the second endorsement from which he is the endorser of the second endorsement, and the second endorsement from which he is the person who is the endorser of the second endorsement, and the second endorsement from which he is the endorsee is the endorser of the second endorsement, and even if the second endorsement was transferred by the method of arbitrarily stating the third endorsement from which the transferee is the endorser of the bill, the transferee is legally entitled to transfer the right under the bill as long as the transferor of the bill is the lawful holder at the time of transfer of the bill.

Therefore, Non-party 1, the representative of the non-party 4, who is the non-party 1, was the holder of the bill of this case issued in blank and received the bill of this case in blank from the non-party 2, who was the legitimate holder of the bill of this case. Thus, the above non-party 1 supplemented the non-party 3 to the payee column of the bill of this case, which is a blank bill, and then the above non-party 3, who is the endorser, shall be the above non-party 3, and the non-party 3, who is the above corporation, shall be the endorser, and the non-party 4 shall be the above corporation, and the non-party 4 shall be the endorser, and the non-party 4 shall be the above non-party 4 shall be the above non-party 4 as the endorser, and even if the plaintiff received the bill of this case from the plaintiff by arbitrarily stating the third party 4, who is the legitimate holder of the bill of this case, the right under the bill of this case shall be legally transferred from the plaintiff.

The court below's decision to dismiss the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not bona fide acquire the rights under the bill of this case is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the defendant's assertion or by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 16 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act as in the lawsuit

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the non-party 2, who is the complaint of the non-party interesting life insurance company ○, issued four copies of the bill in blank to the defendant and borrowed 60,000,000 won at a discount on the face of the bill with the defendant's consent and issued four copies of a promissory note, including the bill of this case, with the face value and the payee in blank. If we examine the related evidence in comparison with the records, the court below's above fact-finding is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no merit in the conclusion of the judgment.

On the third ground for appeal

Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the good faith or abuse of rights. We do not agree with the reasoning of the judgment below.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)