In a case where a person who issued a cashier’s check loses it by falsely applying for a public summons and becomes final and conclusive after a judgment of nullification is rendered, that person shall be deemed to have acquired the status to exercise the right on the check without holding the check against the debtor bank on the check. Thus, it can be deemed to have acquired the property interest in fraud.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4914 Decided December 26, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7377 Decided November 15, 2007, etc.). In light of the following: (a) comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning; (b) did not have an obligation to return documents related to claims to the victim without receiving interest from the Defendant; (c) the Defendant went to the hotel of this case with J to repay the victim KRW 800 million; and (d) even if there was a dispute between the Defendant and the victim as to whether the amount of KRW 80 million should be appropriated to the principal amount; and (e) whether the unpaid interest should be appropriated first, the act of putting the instant cashier’s checks to the purchaser was merely confirmed as the victim.

It can be deemed that the Defendant issued the instant cashier’s check to the victim rather than to pay it to the victim. As above, if the Defendant issued the instant cashier’s check to the victim and caused I to have lost the said cashier’s check, and invalidated the check upon issuance of a nullification judgment by causing I to apply for a public summons, this would be deemed to have caused property damage by infringing on the victim’s right under the check, regardless of whether it actually and economically suffered property damage to the victim.