Liability of a drawee of a check who refuses payment

The bank which is entrusted with payment as the drawee of a check does not actually bear the obligation to pay the check to its holder, and even if it refuses to pay it, it is not liable to the holder, but is merely related to the check contract in relation to the drawer.

Article 39 of the Check Act

Plaintiff

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Busan District Court (61 Civil Code124)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We reverse the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 450,000 won with an annual amount of 6 parts from April 4, 1961 to the full payment system.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant through the first, second, and third trials.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent are as shown in the attached Table.

In light of the facts established in the original judgment, it is reasonable to view that the defendant bank Busan Branch of the Republic of Korea as the drawee on March 10, 1961, requested payment of the check at the par value of 450,000,000 which was issued by the plaintiff at the same point as the drawee on April 4, 1961, but was refused to pay. Thus, the bank entrusted with payment as the drawee on a check does not actually bear the obligation to pay the check to the holder, and even if the bank refuses payment, it is not liable to the holder, it is not liable to the holder, but is merely a violation of the check contract. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the claim as the exercise of right of recourse due to the drawer's refusal to pay the check as the drawer. According to Articles 29 (1) and 39 of the Check Act, it cannot be argued that the court below's independent opinion that the check was not accepted after the expiration of the period of payment, and therefore, it cannot be argued that it is not clear.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed in accordance with Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Supreme Court Decision 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Kim-gn (Presiding Judge)