미보충 백지어음에 의한 권리행사는 언제나 무효인가? - 새로운 해석의 시도 -

The negotiable instruments basically have the character of contracts of parties. However the contracts are merged into papers which are called promissory notes, drafts or checks. Korean 「Notes Act」 provides that a note should contain the specified terms, and that in case of lack of any such term the note is invalid. Korean 「Checks Act」 has same provisions on checks. The required terms include payee, date of issuance and place of issuance as well as the unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money. In practice, some notes are issued with some terms, including the amount of money and due date, in blank, which are intended to be added later by holder. However some notes are payed and finish their life without the augmentation of the missing terms like payee, date of issuance and place of issuance to the end. But, when the issue is brought before the Court, the Court rules that the incomplete notes are invalid and are not enforceable, according to above mentioned provisions of Notes Act. The deficiency becomes disastrous when the holder of a note sues against the indorser for recourse, because the holder should have presented a complete note in a defined time to preserve the right to recourse. This thesis examines the current laws and bank practices of notes with a brief history of them. Then this thesis suggests that the incomplete instruments should be enforced as the instruments under Civil Code, and further suggests that the presentment of incomplete instruments should be regarded as a valid presentment for preservation of the right to recourse.