[당첨금][미간행]
The case holding that there is no obligation of prize prohibition in case where a person who purchased a tin-printed lottery ticket on the surface of which the payment deadline is indicated, and won won at the end of the above time-limit requests a prize prohibition on the next day.
Article 63 of the Commercial Act, Article 17 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003)
Plaintiff (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
National Bank of Korea (Law Firm Jinho, Attorneys Yoon Won-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na47913 delivered on November 10, 2004
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
According to the records, the lottery ticket of this case is sold at the end of March 2002 and entered on the date of June 29, 2002 as the printing lottery ticket of this case, which was sold at the end of March, 2002, and entered on the surface of the lottery. The defendant, upon notifying the end of the sale above, allowed the lottery to return the lottery not sold until that end. However, the lottery ticket sales prize of this case is in possession of the lottery not returned within the due date of the payment indicated on the surface of the lottery. The plaintiff, on September 30, 202, sold the lottery prize at his own discretion by the due date of the payment. Since the plaintiff purchased the lottery ticket of this case from the lottery sale of this case and won it on September 19, 200, which is the due date indicated on the lottery ticket of this case, he can claim the defendant to pay the prize money to the plaintiff on September 30, 2002, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay it within the due date of the sale after the expiration date of the lottery.
In the same purport, the court below's decision that the defendant is not liable to pay the prize money is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.
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 on the bench.
Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)