The case holding that a creditor who received a check issued by a third party for payment does not produce a lawful payment, thereby causing damage to the debtor.

The case holding that the creditor who received the check issued by a third party for payment does not know or at least know that the financial resources of the drawer of the check will deteriorate after the date of issuance of the check, but did not present the check for payment on the date of payment, thereby losing the right of recourse against the drawer, while not notifying the obligor of such circumstance, thereby causing damage to the obligee from obtaining satisfaction of the claim by preventing the obligee from exercising the claim that was the cause of the issuance of the check at an appropriate time or from not having an opportunity to preserve the claim.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 39 of the Check Act

Large-sized Fishing Cooperative (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Song-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Jin-cil, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2000Na829 delivered on September 6, 2000

All appeals by the defendants and appeals by the plaintiff are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants, and costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and supplementary appeal are examined.

1. As to ground of appeal Nos. 1 and grounds for appeal Nos. 1 and 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff and the defendant 1 entered into a contract on December 16, 196 on the supply of non-party 1 with tax-free petroleum to the same defendant on credit, and the remaining defendants were jointly and severally guaranteed for the defendant 1 from that time to November 20, 197. The plaintiff supplied the defendant 1 with 235,03,236 oil in accordance with the agreement. On March 4, 1998, the plaintiff could not receive compensation for delay from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1'.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in each of the above claims. Therefore, the first ground for appeal by the defendants and the grounds for incidental appeal by the plaintiff are without merit

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in tort is an exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is clearly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and the reasoning of the judgment below is examined in comparison with the records, and the fact-finding or the determination of the ratio is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In this regard, the grounds of appeal disputing illegality such as the incomplete hearing, the lack of right to explanation, the lack of reason, and the order of reason cannot be accepted.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

As seen above, Defendant 1 did not discharge his obligation under the above oil supply contract only on the ground that the Plaintiff did not present the instant check within the time limit for presentment for payment, and on the ground that the Plaintiff’s tort is recognized as having not presented the payment of the instant check within the time limit for presentation for payment, the Plaintiff did not have any influence on the Defendants’ delay liability due to the nonperformance of the oil payment obligation. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the compensation for delay against the compensation for delay. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal on this ground is without merit.

4. Therefore, all appeals and incidental appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)