* 본 문서는 배포용으로 복사 및 편집이 불가합니다.
ㆍ발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 ㆍ수록지정보 : 외법논집 / 37권 / 2호
ㆍ저자명 : 홍승인 ( Hong Seung In )
ㆍ저자명 : 홍승인 ( Hong Seung In )
영어 초록The Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act stipulates in Article 17 that “Any person claimed on a bill of exchange shall not reject a holder’s claim with grounds for protest concerning effective but revocable note. However, where the holder has acquired the bill when he/she was aware of the fact that it would harm the debtor, the same shall not apply..” This provision applies mutatis mutandis to promissory notes (Article 77 (1) 1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act), and a provision with the same purpose is prescribed in Article 22 of the Check Act. It is so called “protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note” that a person claimed on a bill of exchange cannot protest against a transferee’s claim once a note is transferred to a transferee. With a reverse interpretation of this provision, it is understandable that there is another type of protest of bills that any person can protest against a transferee’s claim even if a note is transferred: it is “protest of bills concerning invalid note.”As seen in above, protest of bills are divided into “protest of bills concerning invalid note” and “protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note.” No clear and definite standard is established for distinguishing those two. Even the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act does not stipulate the standard for distinction of the two, and many theories and interpretations on the distinction standard are still conflicting. First and foremost, however, safety of a real owner of the note and safety of a trade should be considered first. As the distinguishing standard is not firmly defined, some that used to be construed as protest of bills concerning invalid note are now understood as protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note.The contents of this study are as follows:distinctive features of protest of bills;types of protestof bills concerning invalid note;types of protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note, problematic points of theories and interpretations on restriction on protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note, and protest by a person knowing that a note is invalid or revocable;protest against the rightless; andprotest against a drawer or previous holder and a current holder.With these contents, this study aims to build a credible theory and interpretation by examining the related issues, cases, and other literatures.
"외법논집"의 다른 논문
- 취업규칙의 본질에 관한 일고찰 -우리 근로기준법 제개정사와 관련하여-20페이지
- 과실범에 있어서의 피해자의 승낙17페이지
- 은행의 근저당권설정비 부담주체에 관한 후속논의16페이지
- 채무자회생법상 원천징수세의 법적 성질에 관한 연구13페이지
- 법정손해배상에 관한 일고 -저작권법 제125조의 2의 규정을 중심으로-18페이지
- 미국 판례법상의 그라이프 사이트에 관한 고찰15페이지
- 공적 조직의 준재정활동(quasi-fiscal activities)에 대한 재정법적 검토 -중앙은행..26페이지
- 기업집단법에 관한 EU 및 영국의 인식15페이지
- 미국 증권규제법상 중요성 판단기준17페이지
- 중국의 M&A 관련법의 개정과 그 문제점에 대한 검토18페이지