백지보충권의 법적 쟁점-대법원2010.5.20.선고2009다48312판결과 관련하여

The blank notes often used in practical trades stands for incomplete notes issued by the intention of having the note holder supplement part or all of bill conditions in addition to the registered seal or signature of note performer. Therefore, although the blank notes are also approved of validity as a note, it is impossible to exercise rights without supplementing the non recorded details of blank note. In other words, it is impossible to exercise the rights on the note to the main debtor as a blank note because it is an incomplete note before being supplemented. But there is problem of whether even the effect of stopping prescription is denied when the note amount claiming right is exercised as a blank note. If one is faithful to the theory that the exercise of rights is impossible as a blank note, the effect of stopping prescription cannot be accepted even if the litigation is filed as blank. But the effect of stopping subscription would have to be accepted because the prescription is processed even for the blank notes to have problem of fairness between the debtor and the holder of blank note or cannot be considered as someone sleeping above the right even if the blank note holder exercises the note amount claiming right without exercising the supplementation right. As examined, the targeted judgment is the one that has ascertained the original trial ruled in favor of plaintiff in the trial at the Supreme Court on the promissory note amount claiming lawsuit by saying that there is effect of stopping extinctive prescription in case the holder of blank promissory note with expiration date recorded claims the note amount without supplementing the blank part. Accordingly, the blank note holder could get deep protection as the prescription gets stopped even if the note amount is claimed without supplementing the blank part and supplements this later