Scope of defects cured due to the bona fide acquisition of a bill

The scope of defects that are cured due to the bona fide acquisition of a bill (the scope of a transferor) is stipulated in Article 16(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act as “a person who loses possession of a bill regardless of the cause” and includes not only the cases where the transferor is an unentitled person, but also the cases of defects, defects, etc. in power of representation.

Articles 16(2) and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Choi Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Maximum salary class overseas 1 person

Development of Gold Bank Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 9Da126080 delivered on May 6, 1994

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The defendant shall pay 86,200,000 won to the plaintiff's outer salary station and the amount of 25,160,000 won to the plaintiff's gambling from June 25, 1993, and 6% per annum from July 2, 1993 to September 11, 1993, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

In full view of evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 3 (the face and back pages of Promissory Notes), evidence No. 4 (the deposit application form), evidence No. 5 (the telephone fee receipt), evidence No. 6 (the resident registration certificate), and evidence No. 1-2 (the confirmation certificate), and testimony No. 1-2 (the confirmation certificate) at the hearing of the court below witness No. 1-2, the defendant stated the non-party 2's refusal to pay the plaintiff 1-3, No. 86,200,00 on March 3, 1993; the issue date of the non-party 2-31, 31, 25, 160, 160, 200, and 2-1, the non-party 1-2's each of the above promissory Notes issued and paid to the non-party 2-party 31, 25, 1993.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs, as the holder of each of the above bills, filed a claim for the payment of each of the above bills against the defendant, who is the drawer. Since the defendant defense that the part of endorsement of the non-party company, who is the payee of the above bills, was forged, the defendant can be acknowledged that the non-party company's bill was issued to the plaintiff 1 in the name of the representative director of the non-party company at the time of the theft of each of the above bills issued by the non-party company and then forged the non-party company's name by arbitrarily denying the seal of the representative director of the non-party company, which was kept in custody by the non-party company, and delivered the second bill in the manner of bill discount to the plaintiff 1, the second bill to the plaintiff 1, and the non-party company's second bill to the plaintiff 2, the non-party company's signature was forged, and thus, the plaintiff's defense of succession of the bill of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void as a legitimate endorsement.

B. The plaintiffs asserted that they acquired each of the above promissory notes in good faith after confirming the status of the non-party at the time when they were requested to discount each of the above promissory notes from the non-party, and inquiring about whether they were an accident bill to the defendant company. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the non-party acquired each of the above promissory notes in good faith, as in the case of this case, where the non-party stolen the non-party company's endorsement of the endorsement of the non-party company's name and then distributed it to others, the legal principles of bona fide acquisition cannot be applied to the non-party company's endorsement of the non-party company's name as the non-party company's first endorsement cannot be applied to each of the above promissory notes, even if the non-party's endorsement of the non-party company's name

Therefore, in the above case of acquisition of a bill, unless there is a bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the non-party, the holder of the bill is not obliged to return the bill. On the other hand, the person who loses possession of the bill loses his rights on the bill. Under the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the scope of defects that can be cured due to the bona fide acquisition of the bill includes not only the transferor but also the defects or defects of the right of representation as in the above case. Thus, it is difficult to find that the non-party was aware that the above non-party was the non-party-party-party-appellant's duty of care before acquiring the bill, and that the non-party-party-party-party-party-appellant's signature and seal was not issued to the non-party-party-party-1, and that the non-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party company's signature and seal affixed to the above non-party-party-party-party-1, who is the plaintiff-party-party-party-appellant.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that since the endorsement under the bill was made after the expiration of the due date, the defendant is not obligated to pay the above amount to the above plaintiff, who is the endorsement after the due date. However, as seen above, the above Jeong-hee and the plaintiff's outer salary bureau, who is the endorsement, are the same person, and even though the above bona fide acquisition was not sufficient, the rights under the bill No. 1 are transferred to the plaintiff's outer salary bureau directly to the plaintiff's outer salary bureau, but the plaintiff's bona fide acquisition was the transfer of the rights under the bill No. 1, and the plaintiff's outer salary bureau actually claims the amount of the bill of this case as the holder of the first bill, and even after the due date, even if the endorsement was made after the due date (Article 20 (1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act), all rights under the bill held by the endorser have the same effect as the transfer of nominative claim (Article 20 (1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act). The defendant's assertion on the human defense of Jeong, as the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff's YYY 86,200,00 won and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from Jun. 25, 1993 to Jun. 25, 1993, the due date of bill No. 25,160,000, and the due date of bill No. 2, the due date of bill No. 1993 to Sep. 11, 1993, and the due date of bill No. 2, the delivery of a copy of each of the bill of this case to the plaintiff's YY YY 86,200,000 and the due date of bill No. 1.

Judges Man-Hun (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-dong