[제권에대한불복][공1996.10.1.(19),2865]
Whether a requester for a public summons is dissatisfied with a judgment of nullification, knowing that he/she was the holder through an unofficial channel, becomes a ground for objection to the judgment of nullification (negative)
Where a requester for a public summons has obtained a judgment of nullification by making an application for a public summons while being contacted by a person who asserts that he/she is a holder through an unofficial channel, it shall not fall under "when the judgment of nullification has been obtained by means of deception or illegality under Article 461 (2) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act."
Article 461(2)7 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1665 (Gong1981, 13792, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
New Zealand Tourism Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Ho-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 95Na12085 delivered on May 10, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff received the check of this case from the non-party 1 and presented it for payment to the payer as a whole, but the defendant did not pay the check money before that time, and thereafter requested resolution of the check money by telephone over 10 times, even though the defendant applied for a public summons with respect to the check, and that even if the person who applied for the public summons did not possess the securities or possessed it, he did not request a public summons as if he lost the securities with the knowledge of the legitimate holder, or that the person who received a request from the holder of the securities through a separate procedure was not subject to the nullification judgment without concealing the fact, and it did not constitute a violation of Article 461 (2) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act or Article 461 (2) 4 of the same Act. The court below rejected the plaintiff's request by the non-public summons.
The ground of appeal is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)