The validity of a promissory note in the place of issue and the place of payment, stating only the trade name indication of the company’s “refinite machine”, and whether the holder of the said note has the authority to supplement the designation where the said company is located on the trade name indication (affirmative)

If only the trade name of the company is indicated in the place of issuance and payment of a promissory note, it cannot be deemed that the concept of the place of issuance and payment required under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act is expressed. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the company satisfies the necessary entry requirements of a promissory note. However, it is reasonable to deem that the supplementary authority to the extent that the said company completes with a valid bill after supplementing the designation in which the said company is located is granted to the holder.

Articles 2, 10, 75, 76, and 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na15869 delivered on January 18, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the Promissory Notes issued by the defendant are not valid as a promissory note, since the Promissory Notes in this case are merely written in both the place of issue and the place of payment, and they are written in an unlawful manner as the place of issue and the place of payment, and further, as to the plaintiff's assertion that the Promissory Notes supplemented the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment to Seoul Metropolitan Government, as seen above, the said Promissory Notes cannot be deemed to be an invalid Promissory Notes with the lack of necessary descriptions and it cannot

2. However, since the trade name indication of the company, which was written in the place of issue and the place of payment of the Promissory Notes, cannot be deemed to have expressed the concept of the place of issue and the place of payment required under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, it is difficult to deem that the company satisfies the requisite entry requirements of the Promissory Notes. However, it is reasonable to deem that the supplementary authority to the extent that the above company’s designation was completed with the valid bill after the supplementation of the designation is stated on the trade name indication is granted to the holder. According to the records, it is obvious that the Defendant is the name of the company operated by the Gangseodongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and thus, the supplementary entry to the above extent shall be deemed to belong

In sum, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the supplement of the incomplete bill, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)