어음청구권의 남용과 고유의 경제적 이익

It is certain that bill holders abuse their bill claim right if they claim the sum due on a bill by seizing their chance to claim their perfunctory qualification despite the fact that bill holders are not the actual rightful entities due to the of expiration of their causal relationship. Nevertheless, according to the traditional bill theory, bill holders cannot reject the payment of pay the sum on a bill because of Abstraktkeit. However, these situations undermine the actual balance between bill parties. There is a view that argues that to solve these problems, payment of the sum on a bill cannot be claimed because bill holders are not rightful entities in a case that the causal relationship of endorsement is terminated when a transfer act can be interpreted as an attractive legal act by separating a promissory note act from an issue. However, even in the traditional promissory note theories that interpret promissory note act as an abstract, it is an abuse of right that an endorsee claims payment of the sum on a bill only by their technical qualification. Also, a legal assertion that a bill holder cannot claim proper economic profits from the promissory note has been settled. In Japan, problems are solved in these stances. That is, it is judged whether or not the claim on a bill can be determined by legal principles on an abuse of right in case of the defense of the latter and on proper economic profits in case of the doppelmangle-defense. In particular, although the causal relationship between an endorser and an endorsee is terminated, if the endorsee posseses claims for restoration and damage, or a separate bond against the endorser, he can execute his rights because he has a proper economic right to reject the return of the bill and claim the payment for the sum on the bill.