Promissory note lawsuit contesting the statute of limitations on a blank promissory note and the existence of a loan claim

The holder of a blank promissory note demanded payment from the maker of the note and later claimed repayment of a loan based on an alleged lending relationship, giving rise to a dispute.

Attorney Jaehoon Lee represented the defendant, who had been named as the maker of the note, in a civil lawsuit responding to the claims on the note and for repayment of the loan.

The key issues were when the statute of limitations began to run on the right to complete a blank promissory note on which items such as the maturity date had not been filled in, whether that period had expired, and whether a lending relationship between the parties could be found merely because the holder possessed the blank note.

A further question was whether, even if a lending relationship were found, the shorter statute of limitations for commercial claims would apply because the transaction was related to the business of a merchant.

Attorney Lee analyzed the entries on the promissory note and the client's past changes of address to pin down when the note had been issued, and argued on the basis of relevant Supreme Court of Korea precedents that the statute of limitations on the right to complete the blank note had expired.

He also pointed out that the other party lacked evidence of the specific circumstances of the alleged loan and of any payment of loan funds, and argued that possession of a blank promissory note must be distinguished from the actual existence of a loan claim.

In addition, he reviewed records of the client's business registration and business activities and argued in the alternative that, even if a loan claim were recognized, the statute of limitations for commercial claims had expired.