204dan94203 Check money

A

B Organization B

C. Partnership

January 17, 2006

February 7, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3 million won with 6% interest per annum from October 12, 2004 to November 17, 2004 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Of the litigation costs, the part relating to the participation by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant's assistant intervenor and the remainder by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 4, 2, and 3-1, 1-2, and 3-2, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

A. On October 5, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) withdrawn KRW 3,00,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s account (D); (b) issued four copies of the cashier’s checks (hereinafter “the instant checks”) from the Defendant, as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On October 12, 2004, the date of presentment for payment as the holder of the instant check, the Plaintiff presented the instant check to Non-Party 1 through Non-Party 2, but refused the payment on behalf of the Defendant on the ground that the instant check was an accident check.

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the check payment obligation, the Defendant, the drawer of the check of this case, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the holder of the check of this case, the sum of KRW 3,000,000,000, and delay damages therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor

(1) The basic facts

According to the statement No. 11 to No. 3, No. 9-1 to No. 13, and No. 10 of No. 10: Non-Party J, K, L, N, P, Q. Q. R., Inc. in order with U, V, WX, Y, and nameless Z., and request the reduction of the amount of information (hereinafter referred to as "fund list") such as the face value of the cashier's checks issued normally to A and the serial number of No. 200 million won (hereinafter referred to as "AB") to the President of the relevant 30 million won for the purpose of using the falsified No. 4, No. 100 million won for the purpose of using the falsified No. 1, No. 300 million won for the purpose of using the falsified No. 1, No. 300 million won for the purpose of using the falsified No. 1, No. 2000 million won for the purpose of using the falsified No. 1, No. 2004.

(2) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s Intervenor conspireds with J, K, L, etc. to forgee the information of the instant checks, and presented them for payment at the Defendant’s subsidiary cancer point, and the employees at the Defendant’s subsidiary cancer point made payment of the check with the belief that the instant forged checks were true. The drawee of the forged check bears the duty of care required at the time of the payment of the check even if the said check is not applied by fraud or gross negligence, and thus, asserts that the payment of the check is exempted pursuant to the statutory terms and conditions or the commercial customs (based on Article 470 of the Civil Act, unless there is any custom).

Article 35 of the Check Act, which is a provision on the discharge in good faith of the drawee, reduces the responsibility of the drawee on the premise that the check is valid and therefore, Article 35 of the Check Act cannot be applied to a forged or altered check without any valid mandate. Thus, without the need for further examination, the Defendant’s motion for discharge pursuant to Article 35 of the Check Act is without merit.

On the other hand, the repayment of a bank to the invalid check that is forged by another person is valid is limited to special laws, the terms of exemption, or the commercial customs, and in this case, the legal principle of repayment to the quasi-Possessor of the claim is not applicable (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2895, Mar. 9, 1971). The special laws and the commercial customs on the payer's exemption does not exist yet, and there is no special provision or the commercial customs on the cashier's exemption. In this case, there is no exemption clause on the cashier's check (Article 7-1) and the basic terms and conditions on deposit transaction (Article 7-2) submitted by the defendant's supplementary participant are not subject to the exemption clause on the transaction of cashier's checks, and therefore, it is not necessary to further examine. In the case of a forged check, Article 470 (Repayment to quasi-Possessor of Claim) of the Civil Act is not applicable. Therefore, the above exemption clause of the defendant's supplementary intervenor is without merit.

(3) The Defendant Intervenor asserts that the Defendant Intervenor was exempted from the duty to pay a check pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Deposit Transactions Basic Terms and Conditions, since the Plaintiff again notified a third party of the information of the instant check, the Defendant Intervenor paid the check money for the instant forged check. However, as seen earlier, the said terms and conditions do not constitute the terms and conditions on the cashier’s check transaction, and therefore are without merit

(4) The Defendant Intervenor took part in or aided the Defendant’s act of forging Check, and provided information on the instant check, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the check money against the instant check is not allowed as an abuse of rights or a violation of the good faith principle. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff or AC took part in or aided the instant crime, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s abuse of rights or the violation of the good faith principle solely on the basis that the Defendant’s Intervenor was dead.

(5) The defendant and the plaintiff's assistant intervenor, as preliminary, committed a tort in collusion with the crime of this case committed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's employee AC, or committed a tort in collusion with the crime of this case, or even if there was predictability of the crime of this case's counterfeit check, the defendant's liability for aiding and abetting the above tort was recognized by negligence by taking the custody of the checks for 2-3 days. Thus, even if the plaintiff's joint tort liability is not recognized by the plaintiff, the worker AC participated in the crime of this case's counterfeit check, and thus, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the tort of this case's employee. Thus, the defendant asserts that even if the plaintiff was liable to pay the non-payment

According to the records of the evidence No. 9-1, No. 8, and No. 12-3, and No. 9-7 of the Evidence No. 9-1, No. 8, and No. 9-7, the non-party AC shall inform AA, an accomplice of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the

According to Gap evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, 14, and 9-4 of Eul evidence Nos. 9-3 and 7 of Eul evidence Nos. 13-1, 13-2, 14-4, and each part of Eul evidence Nos. 9-3 and 7, the following facts are as follows: ① AC intended to purchase a claim amounting to 4 billion won through A through the plaintiff's holding 3 billion won; ② AAC requested AC to issue a large amount of check so that it is able to believe that it has money on the part of the holder of the claim; ② AAC would not find a copy of the original check and the check; ③ AC could not reduce a copy of the check; ③ it is difficult to view AC's participation in the check that only the funds stated in the bill number, amount, ARS (a bank call center's automatic statement) number, etc. for each of the above 30 billion U.S. dollars's criminal charges against Gap, but it is difficult to view A's participation in the above 5000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above amount of KRW 3,00,000,000 as well as damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Check Act from October 12, 2004 to November 17, 2004 on the record that it is the delivery date of a copy of the bill of this case from October 12, 2004, which is the date of presentment for payment of the check of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its implementation is with merit

Judges Yang Sung-soo