Claim by a check after the expiration of the period for presentment;

01 A check may be paid lawfully by the drawee, even after the expiration of the presentment period for payment, until he receives the notification of cancellation of the mandate for payment, and shall not be deemed a check of invalidity as a check.

Article 29 of the Check Act, Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

Ethiosa

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Agricultural Cooperatives

Seoul High Court Decision 60Do712 delivered on November 16, 1960, Seoul High Court Decision 200Do712 delivered on November 16, 200

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney is examined.

Even after the expiration of the period of presentment for payment, the drawee can pay the check lawfully until he is notified of the cancellation of the check. Therefore, this cannot be viewed as an invalid check. The judgment of the court below was issued on November 9, 1959 and it was presented on December 3, 1959 for payment. It is clear that the check was not presented within the period of presentment stipulated in Article 29 of the Check Act. Thus, it cannot be claimed as a check. However, the defendant, who is the drawee of this check, submitted a defense that the check cannot pay the check because it was not presented within the period of presentment for payment, is on the record, and the defendant submitted a defense that the check cannot pay the check because it was not presented within the period of presentment for payment. However, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request on November 9, 1959 through the announcement procedure for the loss of the check. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the decision of the court below is without merit as to the plaintiff's appeal.

Judge Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court