A. (1) On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff issued, from the Intervenor, one cashier’s checks of KRW 50 million at face value (D) and two cashier’s checks of KRW 10 million at face value (e.g., check E and F) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant checks”).

(2) On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff issued the instant check to the Defendant by lawfully paying the check, but the payment of the said check was refused on the ground that the Plaintiff reported the loss of the check from the Intervenor, the client for the issuance of the said check.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant, the drawer of the instant check, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the holder of the instant check, 70 million won in return for the so-called profit reimbursement of the benefit equivalent to the face value of the instant check, and 6% per annum prescribed by the Check Act from July 1, 2014 to September 15, 2014, which is apparent from the date of presentment of payment, to September 15, 2014, which is the date of delivery of the instant check, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to

C. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that, according to Article 74(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, the presenting bank, which received the notice of default from the paying bank, shall return the unpaid bill to the holder, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim, which is merely the presenting bank of the instant check, is unfair and is merely a non-payment of the check due to the Intervenor’s report on the accident by the participant, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for delay of the check.

However, the Plaintiff’s check of this case.