Whether a refusal by a financial institution, etc. to pay a check without receiving a separate deposit equivalent to the face value of the check constitutes a tort against the holder of the check (negative)

The purpose of a check is to protect the credit of ordinary check transactions by preventing the issuer from abusing the thinking system as a means to escape the transaction politics due to default of payment of the check by making a false report with the intention of evading payment of the check amount. The drawee of a check may not refuse payment of the check amount if the drawer expresses his/her intention of revocation of the check payment. Thus, the fact that the drawee of a check refuses payment of the check amount on the ground that he/she did not receive a separate deposit equivalent to the face value of the check amount and did not constitute a tort.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Kim Yong-right

Korea

Seoul Civil History District Court (82 Gohap7564)

This appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,200,000 and the amount at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the next day of service to the next day of full payment.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the defendants in the first and second trials.

The non-party 3,200,00 won at a face value of the non-party 3,20,00 won at a face value of the check, the body book issued by the defendant, the place of payment, and the drawee's post office, and the bearer postal transfer check issued on July 19, 1981, and the plaintiff presented to the payer on July 20, 1981 for the payment of the check, but the plaintiff was refused to pay for the above check on the ground that the non-party 1, the drawer, and the above non-party 3,20,00,00 won was deposited in the above post office at a separate deposit at the above post office at the time of receipt by the non-party 1, the plaintiff did not request the above non-party 3, the debtor, the defendant as the third party debtor, and the defendant as the third party 8137,295,000 won for the above provisional seizure against the defendant 29,000 won.

However, in the course of carrying out the duties of a check at a post office, the employee in charge of the check shall have the drawer deposit the amount equivalent to the face value of the check in order to guarantee losses to be borne by the lawful holder of the check, but the non-party, who is an employee in charge of the above post office, shall not have the above non-party company deposit the amount of the check separately from the above company, and the plaintiff cannot execute provisional attachment of the right to request the return of the check, as seen above, as well as to execute provisional execution against the above non-party company on the above non-party company by claiming that the above non-party company would not be subject to compulsory execution due to the aggravation of its property status, and thus, the above non-party company would not be entitled to receive the same amount of the check from the issuer because of the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party's non-party's non-party's failure to receive the above amount of the check.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed because it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below that made the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-jin (Presiding Judge)