1. According to the records, the first instance court rejected the defendant's statement on the ground that the defendant, who was issued one sheet of the par value per share of the Gyeonggi Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the check in this case") from March 31, 1991 in the order of gambling, had his seal kept after being asked to postpone the issuance date of the check from May 10 of the same year from the above gambling order to May 10 of the same year. The court below deleted the face value of the check in two lines for the purpose of exercising the above gambling order on April 22 of the same year, deleted the face value of the check in two lines, affixed the seal of the above gambling order, and then changed it with a face value of KRW 100,00,000 above, and presented it to the south Central Branch of the Gyeonggi Bank, which is a paying bank, and the court below recognized that the defendant had exercised it by presenting it to the South Branch of the Bank. The court below rejected the above statement of the defense counsel's reasons for appeal.

2. Examining the record, the Defendant held one sheet of each unit and one promissory note other than the check of this case, and the check of this case was originally issued on March 31, 1991, with a face value of KRW 35,000,000,000, the issue date of this case, and the issue date of this case on May 10 of the same year. Other than the check of this case, one sheet of the face value of KRW 30,000,000, the issue date of each unit is on March 31, 191, with a face value of KRW 35,000,000,000, and only a seal of the above one sheet of each unit on the issuance date of this case on March 31, 191, and a promissory note is issued at a face value of KRW 35,00,000,000, and on December 29, 191.

In response, the defendant's money to be received from the above gambling order is KRW 100,00,000 in total amount of the above face value, and the defendant's seal was received upon request from the above gambling order to postpone the payment of the check amount and affixed a seal to the issue date with his consent. Then, the defendant's seal was received upon his request to postpone the payment of the check amount, and then his consent was changed to be KRW 100,000 in total the face value of the check of this case and the face value of the promissorysory note. The above gambling order was issued to the defendant two times on April 1, 191 of the same year. However, it was not accepted as the face value of the check, and the defendant did not agree to pay the face value of the check amount to the defendant as the total sum of the face value of the check amount of KRW 60,000 in the face value of the check.

3. However, it is not necessary to issue the defendant's seal twice in the first and second order of April of the same year when the two copies of the above Table of the number of units issued on the same day as the date of issuance. If the money to be paid to the defendant is KRW 100,000,000, which is the sum of the above number of units and the face value of promissory notes, the above order of the gambling is likely to have approved the issuance of one unit number per unit, which is the sum of these face values. Thus, the court below should examine whether the money to be paid to the defendant is KRW 65,00,000,000, or KRW 100,000, or KRW 100,000.

4. In addition, according to the records, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the above 10th e.g., Suwon District Court Branch 91Mo430, and received a favorable judgment on December 6, 1991 (the trial record 140 pages). The facts are not recognized to have changed the face value of the per e.g., the lawful change upon the consent of the issuer. The defendant (the plaintiff in the above case) had a claim of KRW 100,00,000 against the above e.g., the above e., 10th e., 0th e., 00s e., 00s e., 00s e., e., 000s e., 10s e., e., 00s e., 10s e., e., 0s e., 10s e., e., 10s e., e.s 10s e.

5. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the incomplete hearing, and the arguments are justified within the scope of this scope.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.