Whether or not a person who acquires a household check by a person other than an issuer acquires it without confirming his/her right to supplement, even though he/she is aware that it has been supplemented by an amount exceeding the limit stated on the face of the household check, by gross negligence.

The face value of a check is the most important part of the check, which is not in blank, but in blank. Furthermore, in the case of a bank check, the ordinary face value is stated on the face value of the check, and in the case of that bank check, a check in excess of that limit is prohibited from being paid by the paying bank unless the drawer presents it directly to the bank. Furthermore, in the case of issuance in excess of that limit, the issuer is also at a disadvantage such as being subject to a disposition of suspension of transaction from the bank. Thus, if the purchaser acquires it with the knowledge that the face value is more than that specified on the face value of the check by a third person who is not the drawer, it shall be determined by such method as inquiring the drawer about it to the third person, and if he acquires it without confirmation, it shall not be considered as a acquisition by gross negligence unless there is a special reason.

Article 13 of the Check Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Young-chul and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na46581 delivered on February 16, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the adopted evidence, found that the defendant issued one copy of the household check with a face value set at KRW 8,240,000 to the non-party, and that the non-party transferred the blank part to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was refused to pay it at the place of payment. The above check was unfairly supplemented in excess of KRW 2,00,000, which is the scope of the supplementary right, and even if the plaintiff knew or knew of such circumstances, he acquired it without knowing it due to gross negligence. Thus, the defendant's defense that the above amount exceeded KRW 2,00,000,000 was rejected on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. The court of first instance, which affirmed the plaintiff's claim for the amount of the check of this case, was affirmed.

2. However, the face value of a check is the most important part in the check, which is not in blank, but in blank, the issue limit is stated on the ordinary face of a check, and in the case of a household check, a check exceeding the above limit cannot be paid from the paying bank unless the drawer directly presents it to the bank. Furthermore, in the case of issuance exceeding the above limit, the issuer is also at a disadvantage such as being subject to the disposition of suspension of transaction from the bank. Thus, if the purchaser of the check acquires it with the knowledge that the face value exceeds the limit on the face value on the face by a third person who is not the drawer, it shall be necessary to confirm whether the purchaser has the right to supplement it to the above third person by making inquiries into the drawer, and if it was acquired without confirming it, it shall not be deemed as gross negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da10548, Aug. 22, 195; 207Da378, Apr. 27, 1997).

However, according to the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (A) adopted by the court below, it can be presumed that the family check of this case contains "2 million won or less" as stated above in its face value as stated above, and in its face, "a check in excess of the limit shall be received only when the issuer directly presents to the bank." Meanwhile, according to each statement of Nos. 2-1 and 2 (criminal record of the first instance trial and indictment) which the plaintiff acknowledged its establishment, the non-party shall supplement the coefficient sheet of this case and deliver it to the plaintiff, and the supplementary and delivery place was ○ farm operated by the plaintiff. Thus, in light of this, it can be presumed that the plaintiff acquired it with the knowledge that the family check of this case was supplemented by a third party, not the defendant, who is the issuer, and thus, if the plaintiff acquired it without confirming whether it was authorized as above to the above non-party at that time by the issuer, the plaintiff can be deemed as gross negligence in acquiring the mark of this case.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the defendant's above defense was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to gross negligence in the acquisition of a check where a blank check was supplemented differently from the agreement, and as such, it did not properly examine the fact, thereby adversely recognizing the fact that it affected

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)