Acquisition of a crossing ticket and cutting of personal defense;

Since this check is a cross check and the statement of warning that it is deposited on the day, it is anticipated that the person who acquired the check is likely to attach a defense right, etc. compared to the ordinary check, but there is no other evidence to deem that the non-party was aware of the fact that he acquired the check, and there is no other evidence to deem that the non-party was aware of the fact that he did not harm the debtor. Thus, the acquisition of the check by the plaintiff is justifiable.

Article 22 of the Check Act

67Da1955 decided Oct. 12, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 2135 decided Oct. 12, 1967; Decision No. 21 (1)74 of the Check Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (65A974) of the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 65Da974)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 350,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from January 19, 1965 to the date of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

Provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (2).

The same shall apply to the order.

On January 17, 1965, the date of the issuance by the Defendant of KRW 350,000 on February 17, 1965, all of which were issued at the place of payment on February 17, 1965, issued one copy of a pre-paid check at the funeral branch of the Japanese Bank Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff received the pre-paid check from Nonparty 1 and presented it to the non-party 1, but the Plaintiff was refused to pay on the ground that it was lost. There is no dispute between the parties.

On January 13, 1965, the defendant issued the above check by Nonparty 1 using the non-party 2's business funds to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's signature and seal to the non-party 5's transfer of 1,00,00 won to the non-party 2, and the non-party 1 has secured 650,00 won of 650 won of 70 won of 1's cash transfer, so the non-party 2 asked the non-party 3 to offer a loan to the non-party 1 for this purpose, and the non-party 3 can use 150,000 won of 1's cash transfer to the non-party 5's signature and seal to the non-party 1 (the non-party 1's signature and seal to the non-party 6's signature and seal to the non-party 1's signature and seal to the non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's statement to this effect.

However, in this case where there is no evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the non-party 1 received the check in this circumstance, the plaintiff's acquisition of the check cannot be deemed justifiable (However, since the check is a cross check and there is a warning letter on the day deposit, so it is anticipated that the person who acquired the check would have been aware of the possibility of attaching a defense right, etc. compared to the ordinary check, but it cannot be recognized that the defendant, who is the drawer of the check, is liable to pay to the plaintiff, who is the holder, the damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum, which is the interest rate specified in the Check Act from January 19, 1965, after the date of presentment and presentation. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for this lawsuit shall be justified and it is unfair in the judgment that rejected the plaintiff's claim, and this appeal is reasonable, and therefore, it is decided as per Disposition under Articles 386, 96, 89, and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)