1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 and No. 2.

On November 30, 2016, the Defendant’s Intervenor issued to Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) on November 30, 2016, one cashier’s checks ( check number D; hereinafter “instant checks”) consisting of 10,000,000 face value at the issue point of the issuer’s National Bank Co., Ltd. (the head of the Samsung Station Branch Office in charge of Samsung C), Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the payment place, and one cashier’s checks (the check number D; hereinafter “instant checks”), and thereafter E received the check prior to the issuance of the check.

B. On January 16, 2017, the Plaintiff received the instant check from E.

C. On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) collected the Plaintiff’s wife F from the Plaintiff’s wife to receive the check money by depositing the instant check in the Japanese branch account of the Savings Bank; (b) however, the Defendant refused payment from the Defendant’s Intervenor on the ground that the report of loss was made on January 17, 2017, and that the report of loss was filed as of January 19, 2017.

2. According to the facts found in the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay 10,000,000 won and delay damages to the Plaintiff who acquired the right on the instant check by continuous endorsement, barring any special circumstances, as the drawer of the instant check.

3. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion (i.e., the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor did not investigate whether there were circumstances under which the transferor of the instant check could suspect the substantive non-rights of E at the time they acquired the instant check, and thus, the Plaintiff acquired the instant check with the intent to prejudice the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor.

The Plaintiff, around December 19, 2016, lent money to E, and around January 16, 2017, the instant check was issued for the repayment of the loan from E.