1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the plaintiff's claim seeking payment of the check on April 23 of the same year on the ground that the check of this case was rejected by the defendant, based on macroficial evidence, that the defendant issued and delivered the check to the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, the wife of the above non-party 1, was bound to affix the check on April 13, 192. The above non-party 2 reported the theft of the check to the competent police box immediately. The defendant, who became aware of this fact, filed a theft report at the same place as the Japanese bank Doldong branch of the Japanese bank, which is the payer of the check, at that time, filed a public summons and received a judgment of nullification on August 8 of the same year, and rejected the check on the ground that the above judgment of nullification was invalidated by the above judgment of nullification.

2. However, according to the records, in the first instance court of this case, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request because the check was stolen due to the circumstances leading to the recognition of the court below, and proved that the plaintiff acquired the check in good faith and without negligence while explaining the process of acquiring the above check, and the court of first instance declared the plaintiff's winning judgment on the ground that it is difficult for the plaintiff to know that the check was stolen at the time when the above check was acquired or was acquired by negligence. The defendant raised an appeal and argued that the judgment of nullification was rendered on the above check in the process of the first instance court's determination as to the gross negligence, and the above non-party 1's request for a public summons procedure by the above non-party 1 (the part where the court below acknowledged that the defendant applied for a public summons was rejected after the above non-party 1's request was presented as evidence, but the court below still rejected the above judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for nullification was no more than the above non-party 1's allegation that the check was invalid after the above judgment of nullification.

In light of the above litigation process or the hearing process of this case, it was discussed only as to whether there was gross negligence between the parties in acquiring the above check until the closing of argument in the court below, and there was no express dispute as to the effect of the above judgment on this case. Furthermore, it is extremely exceptional that the plaintiff, the holder of the check in the above public summons procedure, without reporting the right, reports the right to the above public summons by the defendant himself as the issuer of the check. Thus, in order to take the facts on which the court below rendered the above judgment as the basis of the judgment, the court below should point out the so-called passive effect of the judgment in the above public summons procedure, and ask the plaintiff to speak and state his opinion as to whether the above public summons procedure was reported or not, or it should have been revealed that the defendant stated his relation with the above public summons procedure. However, the above judgment was based on the court's judgment without any doubt as to the fact that the defendant was written as the holder of the right, and it did not properly affect the conclusion of the judgment before the closing of argument in the court below.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)