1. As to the case of application for public summons No. 2014Kadan189 of the Gwangju District Court, this Court shall list the case of application in the annexed sheet on April 27, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 4, 2014, the Defendant filed a motion to seek a public summons and nullification judgment on the instant cashier’s checks on the grounds that the Defendant lost the instant cashier’s checks (hereinafter “instant cashier’s checks”) issued by the Special Metropolitan City District Court 2014Kao189, on the grounds that the Defendant was finally holding the cashier’s checks (hereinafter “instant cashier’s checks”) on the attached list issued by the Fisheries Cooperatives (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Branch) on November 20, 2014 while organizing the Defendant’s office located in D, a building, around 20:0.

B. On January 20, 2015, the Gwangju District Court issued a public summons to the effect that “the bearer of the instant cashier’s checks shall submit a report on the right or claim to this court by April 16, 2015,” but did not report the right or claim to the instant cashier’s checks by the said peremptory date, and the said court rendered a nullification judgment (hereinafter “instant nullification judgment”) that declared the invalidity of the instant cashier’s checks on April 27, 2015.

C. On March 18, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was issued the instant cashier’s check by E, presented the instant cashier’s check to the North Korean Branch of the Fisheries Cooperatives on May 19, 2016, but refused payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 4-1, and Gap evidence 5, the purport of the whole arguments and arguments

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The relevant legal doctrine provides that a public summons procedure may exercise a right by means of a judgment of nullification in a case where there is no person who reports or claims the right within the prescribed period by the public summons applied to the court, even though the holder of the securities could not exercise his/her right by the securities if he/she had been able to exercise the right by the securities if he/she had failed to lose the securities. Therefore, the final holder entitled to exercise the right by the securities if he/she had not lost the securities to permit the public summons.