[1] In a case where a creditor transfers to another person a check of securing payment of an existing cause obligation or a check issued or issued for such security, the requirements to extinguish an existing cause obligation

[2] The case holding that since the transferor of real estate transferred the provisional coefficient list of the subsequent issuance of a subsequent purchaser of real estate, which was issued by the transferee as the purchase price, to a third party, but the household check was refused to be paid, if the subsequent purchaser of real estate paid the price to a third party to be exempted from punishment pursuant to the Illegal Check Control Act, and the third party was no longer entitled to a claim for repayment to the transferor of real estate, and the transferor of real estate ultimately exempted the transferor from the obligation of repayment on the check, the claim for the remaining purchase price also

[1] In a case where a check is issued or delivered for the purpose of securing payment of the existing cause obligation or for the security thereof, even if the creditor transferred the check to another person with or without compensation, it is not immediately extinguished by the existing cause obligation, and it shall be deemed that the existing cause obligation ceases to exist only when the creditor who transferred the check completely discharges the obligation to repay the check.

[2] The case holding that in case where the transferor of real estate transferred the provisional coefficient list of the subsequent issuance of a subsequent purchaser of real estate, which was issued by the transferee as the purchase price, to a third party, but the household check was refused to pay, and the subsequent purchaser of real estate paid the price to a third party to be exempted from punishment pursuant to the Illegal Check Control Act, if the subsequent purchaser of real estate collected it, the third party was no longer entitled to a claim for repayment against the transferor of real estate, and the transferor of real estate ultimately exempted the transferor from the obligation of repayment on the check

[1] Articles 10 and 17 of the Check Act, Article 460 of the Civil Code / [2] Articles 10 and 17 of the Check Act, Article 460 of the Civil Code

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff (Supplementary Intervenor) (Attorney Kim Hong-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Seo-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2000Na2274 delivered on December 14, 2000

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (takeover).

1. Based on the evidence of employment, the lower court: (a) on October 297, the Plaintiff: (b) sold the instant land and buildings to Nonparty 1 (referring to Nonparty 1; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) on April 15, 1998, received a total of KRW 292,830,130 from the purchase price; (d) on June 9, 198, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 54,169,870 to the Plaintiff for the remaining purchase and sale of the instant land and KRW 90,000,000 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the remaining purchase and sale of the instant land were 90,000,000,000 won and KRW 54,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won and KRW 9,000,000,000,000,000,000.

2. Examining the records and relevant evidence, the lower court’s recognition and determination that the Plaintiff’s portion of KRW 45 million out of KRW 54 million against the Defendant was appropriated and extinguished as the lease deposit for the lease concluded between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 is acceptable, and the circumstances cited in the grounds of appeal are not enough to be determined differently. Thus, this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

3. Meanwhile, in a case where a check is issued or issued for the purpose of securing payment of an existing cause obligation or for the security thereof, even if the obligee transferred the check to another person with or without compensation, it is not immediately extinguished by the obligee’s existing cause obligation, and it should be deemed that the existing cause obligation is extinguished only when the obligee transferring the check is ultimately exempted from the obligation to repay the check.

According to the records, the plaintiff received the check of this case from the non-party 2 for the payment of KRW 9 million, and transferred it to the non-party 4, etc. for the payment of the pre-paid check of this case. The non-party 4, etc. refused to pay the pre-paid check at the place of payment. However, the non-party 2, the issuer of the check of this case, refused to pay the pre-paid check at the place of payment. To be exempted from punishment under the Illegal Check Control Act on October 29, 198, the non-party 4, etc., who had received the check of this case from the plaintiff, cannot be viewed as having claimed the plaintiff to pay the pre-paid check of this case. Thus, if the plaintiff had a duty to pay the pre-paid check of this case to the non-party 4, etc., the plaintiff can be viewed as having terminated the pre-existing obligation to pay the pre-paid check.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the assignee cannot claim payment of KRW 9 million equivalent to the face value of the purchase and sale balance of this case against the defendant, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as asserted in the ground of appeal, and this part of the ground of appeal is without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)