[1] The starting point and the period (=6 months) of the statute of limitations on the right to supplement blank checks whose date of issuance is blank

[2] Whether the parties can agree explicitly or implicitly on the time when the right to supplement a blank check is exercised (affirmative)

[1] Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act / [2] Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da25050 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1976) Supreme Court Decision 99Da64018 delivered on October 23, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2523) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do206 delivered on January 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 502)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo-cheon et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2006No4001 Decided March 8, 2007

The appeal shall be dismissed. One hundred-five days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that a person who has issued or prepared a check shall not be paid on the date for presentation due to shortage of deposits after issuing the check. Thus, if a blank check has been issued, the blank portion shall be filled and presented lawfully. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the check issued with the date of issue shall commence from the time when the exercise of the right on the check is legally possible in light of the underlying relationship between the issuing party and the check. The extinctive prescription period, the claim arising from the exercise of the right to supplement the check is the check deposit and the claim arising from the exercise of the right to demand the correction of the check is six months after the expiration of the period for presentation of the extinctive prescription of the check, and it shall be deemed that six months from the time when the right to fill the blank can be exercised (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da64018, Oct. 23, 201; 201Do206, Jan. 11, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below acknowledged that the defendant issued each of the checks in this case whose face value is specified and whose issue date is blank as collateral for the borrowed money, and there was an express or implied agreement between the defendant and the check holders at that time to postpone the supplement of the issue date and the presentation of payment prior to the confirmation that the defendant would not repay or repay the principal and interest of the check; the defendant and the check holders entered into a final grace agreement between the defendant and the check holders; but the defendant failed to comply with this agreement; however, the defendant did not comply with this agreement; the holder of each of the blank checks in this case did not pay the check within 6 months from the time of the above final grace agreement, but did not pay the check on the presented date; on the premise that the exercise of the right to supplement blank and the presentation of payment based thereon are legitimate, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found guilty of the facts charged in this case, and there was no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the statute of limitations on the right to supplement or the payment in blank.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)