[1] Where the transferee of the certificate of deposit can be deemed to have gross negligence in acquiring the certificate of deposit, and whether the transferee of the certificate of deposit has a duty of care to obtain the certificate after ascertaining the transferor's actual right (negative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that there was no gross negligence on the part of the transferor on the part of the transferee when the transferee acquired the certificate of deposit

[1] In the acquisition of the certificate of deposit, the transferee shall be deemed to have gross negligence if he/she takes over the certificate of deposit without any reasonable investigation as to the transferor's actual right without considering the transferor's or the certificate of deposit itself, even though there are circumstances that may doubt the transferor's actual right. However, since the certificate of deposit can be transferred only by means of simple delivery, the transferee shall not be deemed to have a duty of care to check the certificate of deposit with the issuer or the previous holder of the certificate of deposit, unless there is a doubt that the certificate of deposit is wrong in acquiring the certificate by means of discount or there is no special circumstance that may doubt the transferor's actual right.

[2] The case holding that there was no gross negligence on the part of the transferor on the part of the transferee when the transferee acquired the certificate of deposit

[1] Article 523 of the Civil Code, Article 16 (2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 523 of the Civil Code, Article 16 (2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promis

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2079 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1987, 1134) Supreme Court Decision 95Da1980 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3252), Supreme Court Decision 97Da7936 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 1983)

Seoul Securities Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Bank, Inc.

Public Official Pension Corporation (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na25015 delivered on November 11, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant joining the defendant.

Each of the grounds for appeal by the attorney of the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) is examined as well.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant issued the instant certificate of deposit to the assistant intervenor, and Nonparty 1, an employee in charge of accounting at the assistant's former office, sold the instant certificate of deposit at discount without authority, and the defendant issued the certificate of deposit to the assistant intervenor at the time of issuing the instant certificate of deposit to the assistant intervenor. The non-party 1, the head of the business team at the Plaintiff Jeonju branch, issued the certificate of deposit to the assistant intervenor, and the non-party 1, the head of the business team at the Plaintiff Jeonju branch, issued the certificate of this case to the assistant intervenor. The court below rejected the judgment of the court below that the above non-party 1 did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as alleged in the ground for appeal.

2. In the acquisition of the certificate of deposit, the transferee cannot be deemed to have a duty of care to obtain the certificate of deposit after checking it with the issuer or the previous holder of the certificate of deposit, unless there is a doubt that the transferor's actual rights are doubtful by the transferor or the certificate of deposit itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da19980, Aug. 22, 1995; 97Da7936, May 28, 1997). However, since the certificate of deposit can be transferred solely by the mere delivery, the transferee cannot be deemed to have caused any error in the certificate of deposit in acquiring the certificate of deposit at a discount, unless there is a doubt that the certificate of deposit is erroneous or there is a doubt that the transferor's actual rights are not known by the transferor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2079, Jun. 9, 1987).

If the facts are as determined by the court below, the plaintiff issued a certificate of this case to the defendant when purchasing the certificate of this case from the above non-party 1 and confirmed that the plaintiff purchased a large amount of certificate of this case and made a normal settlement except for the case. The plaintiff applied a normal discount rate in purchasing the certificate of this case. The certificate of this case does not have a special meaning as to the certificate of deposit in the case of trade in which the certificate of this case is non-party 1's non-party 1's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's non-party 1's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's certificate of this case's case's certificate of non-party 1's right.

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 Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)