본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대법원 1995. 11. 24. 선고 95도1663 판결

[부정수표단속법위반][공1996.1.15.(2),299]

Main Issues

Effect of household checks issued in excess of the limit of issuance per head of the household;

Summary of Judgment

The phrase “300,000 won or less printed on the paper of a household check” is written on the basis of a check contract which was concluded in advance with the drawer and is merely written on the face of a check to enable a third party to know some of the contents of the check contract. Meanwhile, the proviso of Article 3 of the Check Act does not affect the validity as a check even if a check is issued in violation of a check contract with respect to the funds for a check. Thus, the validity as a household check issued in excess of the above limit of issuance does not affect.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 2(1) and (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 3 of the Check Act

Reference Cases

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Appellant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul District Court Decision 95No242 delivered on June 15, 1995

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The phrase such as '300,000 won or less printed on the paper of household check' is written on the basis of a check contract which was concluded in advance with the drawer and is merely written on the face of a check to enable a third party to know a part of the terms of the check contract. Meanwhile, according to the proviso of Article 3 of the Check Act, even if a check is issued in violation of a check contract with respect to the funds, it does not affect the validity as a check. Thus, the validity of a household check issued in excess of the above limit is not affected (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da10945 delivered on August 22, 1995).

Therefore, even if the defendant stated the amount in excess of the issue amount per sheet and issued the provisional coefficient check, the defendant cannot be exempted from liability for the failure to pay the check. Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is without merit.

2. In addition, as long as the check of this case was issued and offered to distribute the transaction by the Defendant’s will, as alleged by the Defendant, it does not affect the external validity of the check of this case, regardless of the existence or absence of a personal defense, and thus, the Defendant cannot be exempted from liability for the non-payment of the check of this case.

Therefore, the ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)