Where the holder of a cashier's check issued by a bank or any other financial institution transfers a check with the limit of the period of presentation without taking the procedure to preserve it under the Check Act, the holder of the check shall be entitled to claim reimbursement of profits from the issuing bank and the legitimate holder of the check.

The cashier's checks issued by the bank or other financial institutions are widely distributed in cash as well as in cash, depending on the transaction conviction that they can be easily paid to the issuing bank or any other monetary institution after the period of presentation, and the transfer of checks is a common perception of transaction. In light of the situation of transaction that the check holder takes over, without distinction between the rights on the check and the rights on the check, and without distinction between the rights on the check and the rights on the check, the transfer of the rights on the check at the expiration of the period of presentation and the right on the check after the expiration of the rights on the check without taking the procedure of preservation under the Check Act, the transfer of the check to the holder of the rights on the check shall be limited to the right to receive the amount of the check and the right to claim the reimbursement of profits on the check shall be limited to the transfer of the rights on the check at the same time to the issuer who earns profits on behalf of the holder of the rights on the check and the right to claim the reimbursement of profits on the check shall be limited to the transfer of the rights on the check to the third party.

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea shall be the Minister of Justice Kim Jong-han and Lee Jin-gu

Japanese Bank of Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 69Na605 delivered on September 17, 1970

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the principal case shall be remanded to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The gist of this case’s ground of appeal

First, the drawer shall make payment of the check to the holder of the check unless it is determined by the judgment of nullification after the lapse of the time limit for presentment for payment. Second, since the check is acquired by the plaintiff's contribution at par value, the defendant shall pay the same amount to the plaintiff who is a legitimate holder of the check, and since the defendant refuses to pay the check, it shall be returned to the plaintiff, i.e., gains without any legal cause, such as undermining the above par value, since the check is presented to the payer for payment within the time limit for payment, but it shall not be allowed to make a retroactive claim against the drawer who does not follow the procedure for preservation of rights such as preparing a protest or receiving a declaration of non-payment within the prescribed period of time when payment is refused, and as such, it cannot be seen that there is a difference between the holder of the check and his own contribution at par value after the expiration of the 10-year period for payment, the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement after the expiration of the 10-year period for benefit as the drawer at the first instance court's ruling.

However, when a right on a check terminates due to a defect in the procedure or the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the lawful holder of the check at the time may seek reimbursement of the benefit he has received from the person liable on the check. On the other hand, a cashier’s check issued by banks or other financial institutions (hereinafter simply referred to as a bank’s cashier’s check) is widely distributed in cash as well as in cash due to a transaction conviction that it can be easily paid from the issuing bank or any other financial institutions after the period of presentation. In addition, as a general perception of transaction, the transfer of the check is an act of transferring the right to receive the money from the issuing bank from the issuing bank without distinction between the rights on the check’s face value and the original owner’s right on the check’s face value (in some sense), and it is appropriate to transfer the right to receive the money from the issuing bank without such distinction between the rights on the check’s expiration and the transferee’s right to receive the benefit on the check’s face value without such distinction. In light of the situation of transaction, the transfer of the right on the check can be transferred without such special circumstance.

The precedents of party members (Law No. 69Da1390 delivered on January 27, 1970) shall be deemed to have been changed by this decision to the extent that they conflict with the above purport.

Therefore, in this case, unless there are special circumstances that the plaintiff, who is a legitimate holder of the check and the issuer of the check, benefits in relation to the issuance of the check, the plaintiff can seek reimbursement from the defendant within the scope of his profits he received. As such, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether the plaintiff is a legitimate holder of the check, whether the plaintiff is a legitimate holder of the check, whether the defendant bank benefits the defendant bank, and if there is no special circumstance as displayed, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim. Since the above illegality is clear that the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Articles 400 and 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is necessary to further deliberate on each of the above circumstances. Thus, the court below's decision in this case should be reversed and remanded to the Dong-dong, Dong-dong and Dong-dong, Seoul Special District Court.

The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court Justices of the Red Sheet, Lee Dong-young, Dong-young Kim Young, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong Kim Yong-dong.

The summary of the majority opinion is that the cashier's checks issued by banks or other financial institutions within the period of presentation.

In addition, the transfer of a check is the actual condition of transaction by transferring the right to receive money from the issuing bank without distinction between the right on the check and the right to redemption arising from the extinction of such right, such as the transfer of a check which is the common form of transaction. In light of such circumstances, the transfer of a check with the lapse of the time limit for presentment without taking the procedure for payment of the amount of the check and the right to reimbursement arising from the expiration of the right on the check to the bearer of the transfer of the check can be viewed as giving the transferee the right to receive money and the right to receive money arising from the transfer of the check on behalf of the issuing bank, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, to the effect that the transfer of the right on the check can be made within the said time limit of time without taking the procedure for payment of the amount of the check and the right to claim reimbursement arising from the transfer of the check to a third party, and that the transfer of the right on the check can be interpreted as being suitable for the transfer of the right to claim reimbursement of the check to the holder.

However, the claim for reimbursement of benefit belongs to a nominative claim, which is a special right recognized by the bill law or the check law, which is a special right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 69Da1370, Mar. 10, 1970; 70Da2994, May 9, 1972). According to this case, since the bill or check is merely a certificate proving the claim for reimbursement of benefit, the bill or check is not a certificate proving the claim for reimbursement of benefit, the possession of the bill or check or the judgment of nullification is not required in the exercise of the claim for reimbursement of benefit. Therefore, even in the transfer of the claim for reimbursement of benefit, it is necessary to take a separate requisite for setting up against the transfer of nominative claim in order to prevent

The theory that the right to claim is a modified object of the right under the bill is also the exercise of the right to claim reimbursement of benefit, and the bill

possession of a check or a judgment of nullification is required, and thus, this is of interest.

The theoretical ground that the transfer of the transferor's right to claim the refund itself becomes effective before the transferor's right to notify the transfer.

In addition, it is difficult to regard the transferor as a matter of course to delegate the right of notification to the transferee if there is a transfer of claim, and there is a case where the cashier's checks issued by banks or other financial institutions are in circulation in the transaction account even after the cashier's rights on the check are lost, and it is against the logic that the transferor's intent of transferring the right of notification of the transfer of claim to the transferee is naturally included in the transfer act. Furthermore, the problem of requisite for setting up the assignment of claim to the transferor is established to protect the obligor, and it is difficult to regard the transferor as a delegation with the right of notification to the drawee of the transferor's right of transfer of claim to the transferee. Since it is difficult to see that the drawee's right of payment is cancelled after the expiration of the payment presentation period, the drawee's right of payment can be exempted from the obligation of payment if the drawee's right of payment is not extinguished due to the above cancellation of payment of the check (Article 32 of the Check Act).

Furthermore, the right to claim reimbursement of benefit is recognized as a final remedy measure that occurs only in the absence of a method of remedy under the bill or civil law. Thus, the claim on the bill is strictly distinguishable from the exercise of the right, and it is not necessary to interpret the act of transferring the right to claim reimbursement of benefit differently from the act of transferring other nominative claims under the civil law, and it cannot be an exception to the above cashier's checks. In addition, the majority opinion argues that it is difficult to see if there are special circumstances in the case of the above cashier's checks, and it is difficult to see if there are special circumstances, and except in special circumstances, it is difficult to say that the above case falls under the case of the above cashier's checks, and thus, it does not lack uniform in resolving legal relationship with the above cashier's checks. Accordingly, in the case of the above cashier's checks, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of demanding reimbursement of benefit should be done separately in addition to the act of claiming reimbursement of benefit.

Concurring Opinion by the Supreme Court Judge Cho Jong-hee

The following opinions can be presented to the Majority Opinion.

1. It is good for a bank to write off to the effect that it transfers the right to claim reimbursement of benefit arising from the act of transferring the check after the expiration of the period for presentment of payment, but deeming that the bank granted the right to notify its transfer to the debtor cannot be deemed excessive. However, as exhibited, the bank's cashier's checks are in the real situation of transactions that have been transferred before and after the expiration of the period for presentment of payment, and their actual intention is transferred to the effect that the transferor (the holder) can be paid the amount indicated on the check in order to enable it to be paid from the issuing bank. Thus, it is difficult to view that only the transferor's right to claim reimbursement of benefit is the same as the transferor's right to claim reimbursement, but rather, it is difficult to interpret that the transferor's right to claim reimbursement of benefit cannot be viewed as an excessive interpretation that the transferor's right to claim reimbursement of benefit is separate from the transfer of the right to claim reimbursement of all the parties' right to claim reimbursement of the check, and thus, it cannot be said that the transferor's right to claim payment of benefit is an excessive.

2. It is not reasonable to treat specially a bank's cashier's checks separately from bank's checks and non-bank checks (here.g., general checks) on the cashier's checks of the bank. However, the actual state of distribution is distinguishable from bank's cashier's checks and general checks.

The cashier's checks of the bank are rarely rarely necessary to concern that the bank's refusal to pay the bank due to the lack of funds in the case of cancellation of payment entrustment or extreme division. Therefore, it is almost the same kind of cash in the distribution situation. On the other hand, the general check's awareness of transfer is different from that of the issuer's credit and its awareness of general transaction is reached due to the transferor's trust in the transferor's credit. Thus, unlike the bank's cashier's checks in transfer, it can be said that the transfer of the bank's cashier's checks after the expiration of the payment period is done as a general check, unless there are special circumstances, unlike the bank's cashier's checks, and it is extremely rare that the transfer of the bank's checks after the expiration of the payment period is done as a bank's cashier's checks. Therefore, since there is a situation in the two transactions, so long as the transfer of the general checks for which the payment period has expired is unreasonable and unreasonable, it is not sufficient to regard it as the transfer of the cashier's checks.

Therefore, if there are special circumstances to recognize that the transfer of a general check, the period for presentation of which has expired, as well as the right to claim the reimbursement of benefit, has been delegated to the debtor's right to notify the debtor, it should be dealt with in accordance with such specific circumstances.

3. The same treatment as above to the cashier's checks of banks after the expiration of the period of presentment for payment is contrary to the purport of the Check Act setting the period of presentment for short-term payment.

However, in respect of a general check, the drawee shall, unless the payment entrustment is revoked, at the expiration of the time limit for presentment.

In particular, banks will face the period of presentation for payment for cashier's checks issued by them, unless there are extremely exceptional circumstances.

such practices are paid promptly and such practices are not prohibited by the law.

On the other hand, the right to claim reimbursement of benefit arising from the extinction of the right on the check is in accordance with the method and effect of the nominative claim, but it can be transferred before all without any restriction, etc. under the present system, so long as the act of transfer after the expiration of the payment proposal period is in light of the practical function of transaction that cannot be disregarded, it is not necessary to set up his legal significance.

4. Finally, the transfer after the expiration of the period for presentment of payment is not a customary law or legal ground that can be seen as delegation or transfer of the ability to notify the debtor of the transfer to the issuing bank, along with the right to claim reimbursement of the check money and the right to claim reimbursement of profits together with the right to claim reimbursement.

However, as mentioned above, if the cashier's check of a bank is immediately paid to the issuing bank and other financial institutions as well as to immediately pay the cashier's check during the period of presentation of payment, in light of the situation of transaction widely distributed as a means of payment prior to and after the date of presentation of payment, the legal meaning of the transfer act is above the legal meaning of the transfer act as above, it is about the issue of interpretation of the transfer act, and it is not necessary to assert the existence of the customary law and to discuss on the premise of it, so if it is presented to contribute to the legal basis therefor, it would be difficult to present other than the principle of interpretation of the juristic act.

As above, the bank's check is distributed before and after the expiration of the time limit for presentment of payment, and its transfer act has a special aspect that it is difficult to deal with as much as possible with only a fixed concept of a typical method of ordinary transfer of claims. Therefore, it is natural to give an appropriate legal significance to the transferor's actual intention with respect to the transfer act in which it is achieved with the full completion of the distribution process, which indicates the actual status of its distribution and the function of transaction, and accordingly, it is difficult to understand as above.

1. The dissenting opinion argues that if the act of transferring the cashier's checks of a bank at the expiration of the payment presentation period without taking the procedure for preserving the rights (hereinafter simply "transfer act"), it seems that the act would result in the same effect as the exercise of the rights and the right to claim reimbursement of profits in the check which takes the procedure for preserving the rights within the statutory period. However, it is rather problematic in order to consider such a problem. There is no difference between the rights and the right to claim reimbursement of profits due to the extinction of the rights on the check or the right on the check which takes the procedure for preserving the rights, and the contents and requirements of the right to claim reimbursement of profits due to the extinction of the rights and the right on the check. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that the exercise of the rights can be the same as those of the nominative claim.

2. According to the precedent of a party member, the Dissenting Opinion argues that a check lost its validity due to a defect in the procedure, etc.

In order to prevent the risk of double repayment, the transfer shall be limited to a certificate proving the same and the possession of the same check is not necessarily necessary to exercise the above right.

It is necessary to take a separate requisite for setting up against the Do.

However, if only one claim for reimbursement of benefit is discussed, it can be viewed that the act of transferring a bank's cashier's checks without taking the procedure for preserving rights after the expiration of the period for presentation of the bank's cashier's checks can only be viewed as indicating such act. ② It can be viewed as including the intention of granting the transferor's right to claim reimbursement to the obligor for reimbursement, and ③ It is also deemed that the transferor's intention to claim reimbursement is merely an issue of interpretation of the parties' intention of delivery of the check as evidence. However, it is no way to conclude that the transferor's right to claim reimbursement should be separated from that of the transferor's right to claim reimbursement without considering the transferor's actual intention of the transferor's act of transferring the cashier's checks, and it is not necessary that the transferor's right to claim reimbursement should be separated from that of the transferor's right to claim reimbursement, but it is also necessary to keep the transferor's right to claim reimbursement separately from that of the transferor's act of transferring the check to the transferee.

3. The Dissenting Opinion argues that the right to claim reimbursement of benefit can be deemed as a modified object of the right on a check (in any sense), and that there is no room for doubt that there is a logical bound relation between the above understanding of the nature of the right to claim reimbursement of benefit and that the right to claim reimbursement of benefit can be deemed as a modified object of the right on a check (in any sense), and that the right to claim reimbursement of benefit can be deemed as a modified object of the right on a check without taking the procedure for preserving the right and that there is no logical bound relation between the transfer of the check for which the time limit for payment has passed without taking the procedure for preserving the right, but it is not a conclusion based on the relation of the completion of payment. If there is no doubt that the Dissenting Opinion stated in the Dissenting Opinion, it cannot be said that there is a big misunderstanding that it is a debate on the premise of the relation as above.

4. The dissenting opinion argues that the transfer of a bank's cashier's checks and the right to claim reimbursement of ordinary bonds and profits or those issued by an individual person cannot be equally treated as the transfer of a bank's cashier's checks and as mentioned above, the purport of the majority opinion is that the bank's cashier's checks are transferred even after the cancellation of the right on the check due to the lack of the preservation procedure (not including the fact that the payer's right to claim reimbursement of the check remains, and that the transfer of a bank's checks cannot be regarded as an act of sale of a certain kind of check, and thus, the bank's act of sale of a certain kind of check can reasonably be treated as an act of sale of a certain kind of ordinary bank's right to claim reimbursement of profits in the case where the bank's right on the check is lost due to the lack of the procedure for preserving its rights (the above check can be used as an act of sale of a certain kind of ordinary bank's right to claim reimbursement, and thus, the bank's act of sale of a certain kind of duty can be treated as an act of transfer of sale.

5. As such, the bank's cashier's checks, even if the period of presentation for payment has considerably elapsed without taking the procedure for the preservation of rights, are the reality and practice that it cannot be denied in general transactions such as the transfer before and in cash. Therefore, such general reality and practice is based on the background of the general reality and practice, and accordingly, the actual intent of the party to whom the check was transferred and transferred is reasonably understood, and correspondingly, as mentioned above, it is against the logic that it is to give the transferor's right to claim reimbursement along with the right to claim reimbursement and to grant the transferor's right to notify the transferor's obligor, and accordingly, it is against the logic that it is to give the legal significance accordingly, and it is difficult to understand that the intention of the parties as above and to properly deal with it is consistent with the transaction concept of the check distribution.

It is intended to reasonably grasp the intention of the parties in accordance with the concept of the transaction, taking into account the actual circumstances of the transaction and commensurate with the concept.

that the notice of transfer to the debtor was prepared to protect the debtor mainly.

The intention of denying the transfer is rather than a marb, rather than a marb, and the intention of the parties to the transfer, barring special circumstances, is to say that it is equivalent to the party’s real intent to give the right of notification to the person liable for repayment. Therefore, it would not be understood as a marbing of logic to argue that such an attitude of understanding the transfer act is the lack of logic for the purpose of the transfer notification system.

6. In the Dissenting Opinion, the drawee may pay the payment without cancellation of the payment consignment even after the expiration of the payment presentment period, and in the case where the receiver of the bank's cashier's checks refuses payment upon the request of the bank for the suspension of payment (not to this point, but to this point is not an issue), it is difficult to understand the issue as to the old section of the Korea Development Bank, and even if the claim for reimbursement of benefit is the final remedy system, as in the Dissenting Opinion, and the claim for reimbursement of benefit is strictly distinguishable from the claim on the check at the time of the exercise of rights, as in the case of the Dissenting Opinion, even though the claim for reimbursement of benefit is the final remedy system as in the face of the transfer act and the claim for reimbursement of benefit is clearly distinguishable from the claim on the check, it is not a logical relation that the above claim for reimbursement of benefit is a final remedy system and is not a decision on its legal significance, and therefore, the claim for reimbursement of benefit is different from the claim on the check.

In addition, since the above opinion concerns the removal of the intention of the party, it is reasonable to treat the same differently in the case of different cases from the intention of the party, and there is no reason to treat the act of transferring the right of recourse as the validity and method of nominative claim uniformly. The majority opinion is to reasonably form the legal meaning that the above act of transferring the cashier's checks of the bank should be subject to the general discussion and that it should be given to the transfer of the cashier's checks of the bank. Therefore, in special exceptional cases, it is sufficient to treat the same differently.

7. The dissenting opinion follows: A period of presentation for payment without taking procedures for preserving rights to cashier's checks of banks;

It is unclear how to understand the meaning of the act of transfer after the lapse of the time limit. (1) The purport of the act of transfer of the check is as follows: (a) the transfer of the right to claim reimbursement of benefit cannot be recognized as the legal significance of the act of transfer of the right to claim reimbursement of benefit; (b) the transfer of the right to claim reimbursement of benefit must be separate from the transfer of the check, and otherwise must take requirements for setting up against the transfer of the right to claim reimbursement of benefit separately; and (c) the transfer of the check is merely a delivery of the evidence, as mentioned above, unless the cashier's checks of the bank do not take the procedure for preserving the right to claim payment of the check for a considerable period of time without taking the procedure for preserving the right, such transfer of the check cannot be viewed as a theoretical composition of the transaction, which is extremely distant from the actual will of the party to whom the check was transferred, and (b) the above transfer of the right to claim reimbursement of benefit can be understood as a transfer of the right to claim reimbursement of benefit, but it cannot be viewed as exceptional cases where there is no specific intent to give the right to claim payment of benefit.

8. Finally, the bank's cashier's checks, as well as the end, are almost rare and easy payment without taking the procedure for preserving rights at the issuing bank for the high level credit, and the bank's cashier's checks are very rare in practice as to the redemption of profits. The bank's checks have the same kind of cash as before and after the expiration of the period for raising the payment of the bank's cashier's checks. Thus, it is doubtful that it is necessary for the bank to grant the right to receive the payment if it is arbitrarily paid by the bank, if it is related to the issuance of the bank's right to receive the payment. However, there is no room for doubt that the bank's arbitrary payment of the above transaction is supported by the law of the bank's voluntary payment, but it is highly difficult for the bank to refuse the payment of the check in light of the concept of the bank's right to receive the check.

Justices Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)