위조배서의 입증책임 - 대법원 1993. 8. 24. 판결 93다4151에 대한 평석 -
The Burden of Proof on the Forged Endorsement - The Comment on the Supreme Court Case of 93 Da 4151, August 24, 1993 -
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Supreme Court of Korea released the famous “Forged Indorsement” -Case in the year of 1993. The time was gone and the case is now very old, but this case has yet a significant meaning in the law of negotiable instrument in Korea. The majority justices of Supreme Court said that the holder of instrument as plaintiff has the burden of proof on the authenticity of a signature. They reasoned it through refining the scope of a rebuttable presumption by Art. 16 (1) Korean Law of Negotiable Instrument (Unified Geneva Law on Negotiable Instrument and Check). In consequence, the valid establishing a liability of each signer on the bill should be proved by the plaintiff. In contrast, the minority justices deny the results of the majority. Key issue on this case lies on the scope of presumption by Art. 16 (1). The author emphasizes the difference between the right ('Recht') and the entitlement (‘Berechtigung’).
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Korea released the famous “Forged Indorsement” -Case in the year of 1993. The time was gone and the case is now very old, but this case has yet a significant meaning in the law of negotiable instrument in Korea. The majority justices of Supreme Court said that the holder of instrument as plaintiff has the burden of proof on the authenticity of a signature. They reasoned it through refining the scope of a rebuttable presumption by Art. 16 (1) Korean Law of Negotiable Instrument (Unified Geneva Law on Negotiable Instrument and Check). In consequence, the valid establishing a liability of each signer on the bill should be proved by the plaintiff. In contrast, the minority justices deny the results of the majority. Key issue on this case lies on the scope of presumption by Art. 16 (1). The author emphasizes the difference between the right ('Recht') and the entitlement (‘Berechtigung’).
참고문헌 (22)
- 강위두, "어음위조의 입증책임", 판례월보, (281), pp.15~ (1994)
- 김교창, "어음위조의 입증책임", 판례월보, (282), pp.16~ (1994)
- 김문재, "전환기의 어음·수표법학 -그 현상과 과제-", 상사법연구, 30(3)통권 : 72, pp.131~173 (2011), 한국상사법학회
- 김정호, "어음·수표법" (2010), 法文社
- 명순구, "아듀, 물권행위" (2006), 고려대 출판부
- 안동섭, "배서위조의 주장과 입증책임", 판례월보, (279), pp.19~
- 윤홍근, "배서위조의 입증책임, In 재판의 한 길(김용준헌법재판소장 화갑기념논문집)", pp.587~ (1998), 재판의 한 길
- 은택, "어음상의 어음채무자가 자신의 기명날인이 위조되었음을 주장하는 경우 그 기명날인의 진정여부에 대한 입증책임의 소재, -대법원 1993. 8. 24.선고 93 다 4151 판결-", 광주지법 재판실무연구, (1997), pp.267~ (1998)
- 이기수, "위조있는 어음의 입증책임", 법률신문, 제2253호, 15~ (1993)
- 이철송, "어음수표법(제12판)" (2012), 박영사
- 정동윤, "어음·수표법, 제5판" (2004), 법문사
- 정동윤, "어음위조의 입증책임", 법률신문 1990. 10. 23. 자, 11~ (1990)
- 정동윤, "배서가 위조된 경우의 입증책임", 법률신문 2264호, 15~ (1993)
- 정진세, "어음위조의 입증책임", 법률신문 2266호, 15~ (1993)
- 정찬형, "어음·수표법강의,제7판" (2009), 박영사
- 정찬형, "어음위조의 입증책임", 판례월보, (285), pp.16~ (1994)
- 최기원, "어음위조의 항변과 입증책임", 법률신문 (1993. 10. 18. 자), 12~ (1993)
- 최준선, "어음수표법" (2012), 삼영사
- Baumbach-Hefermehl, "Wechselgesetz und Scheckgesetz, 22. Aufl" (2000), Beck
- "Charlmers & Guest on Bills of Exchange, 14th ed." (1991), Sweet & Maxwell
- Müller-Christmann, "Wertpapierrecht", pp.1992, Schnauder
- Sedatis, "Einführung in das Wertpapierrecht" (1988), de Gruyter