[수표금청구사건][고집1961민,30]
Whether a request for the deferment of payment of the check and whether a partial delivery of the money is ratified as an act of unauthorized representation.
If the drawer (the principal) on the face issued the check to the holder (the plaintiff) through the non-party to exchange the check, sought a postponement of the payment date, delivered gold 70,000 dollars, and notified the non-party to the effect that the check will be exchanged by issuing the check in the form of the non-party upon withdrawal of the lawsuit, the check will be ratified.
Article 130 of the Civil Act, Article 11 of the Check Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] 63Da64 decided Apr. 11, 1963 (Civil Code 130(2), 257, 1887), 64 decided Apr. 11, 1963 (Civil Code 130(1), 7364, 11/245)
Plaintiff
Defendant
Busan District Court (Law No. 4292 civilians587)
This case is dismissed.
Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.
This judgment may be provisionally executed on the provisions of paragraph (1) of the text of the judgment of the first instance.
The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's legal representative is dismissed. The plaintiff's legal representative's non-party 1's order and declaration of provisional execution are new. The defendant's legal representative's actual statement about non-party 1's short-term amount of 1.30,000 won, and the defendant's legal representative's legal representative's delivery of the non-party 2's non-party 3 non-party 4's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's non-party 3's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's non-party 3's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative'.
As a method of proof, the plaintiff's attorney submitted the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the Kimcheon stated the plaintiff in the evidence Nos. 2, and the "Withdrawal" means the withdrawal of this lawsuit, and the model exchange deceptive scheme refers to the withdrawal of this case by the defendant and the delivery of a bill to a new entry, and the defendant's attorney invoked the testimony of Non-party 1, 3, and 4 of the original trial witness, and the defendant's attorney denies the testimony of Non-party 3, 6, and Non-party 7, and 8 of the party trial witness at the original trial and denies the establishment of the evidence No. 1 and 2 of the evidence No. 2.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff's testimony No. 1, which can be acknowledged by the non-party 1's testimony, the non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party.
If so, it is clear that the defendant's payment of 70,000 bills to the plaintiff is recognized as exhibition, but there is no argument by the defendant as to this point, and the defendant is obliged to pay 100 bills of claim to the plaintiff and 100 bills of claim from December 1, 4292 to the full payment date from December 1, 4292 to the full payment date, so the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit is legitimate, but this is justified, and the defendant's prosecution against the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act and is therefore decided as per Disposition by Article 95 and Article 89 of the same Act as to the cost of lawsuit, and provisional execution.
Judges Kim Jong-su (Presiding Judge)