1. The opposing power of those who have acquired the check after the period for presentation expires for the debtor;

2. Whether there is a custom that a check issued by a bank does not extinguish any right on a check even if it was presented within the period for presentment.

1. As long as it is evident that the Plaintiff acquired the check with the lapse of the period without presenting it within the period of presentation, the Plaintiff is confirmed to have acquired the right on the check without acquiring the right on the check. However, since the transfer of the right to claim reimbursement of benefits is the same as that of the transfer of general nominative claim, the transferor cannot set up against the Defendant if the transferor notifies the Defendant, who is the debtor, or without obtaining the consent of the Defendant, who is the debtor.

2. With respect to a cashier's check issued by the present bank, unless there are special circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that there is a customary practice to pay the check as effective as the present bank's check after the expiration of the presentation period, but it cannot be said that there is no such customary practice to recognize the existence of such custom, even if not presented within the time limit, that the check does not become extinct as a matter of course due to the extension of the presentation period.

Articles 6, 24, and 29 of the Check Act

Seoul High Court Decision 4292No375 delivered on October 29, 1959

Plaintiff

Japanese Bank of Korea

Busan District Court (No. 4293 citizen744)

This case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 2 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the main claim to the plaintiff 1 to the day after the full payment of the main claim. The defendant's legal expenses are sought from the defendant's legal representative through the first and the second trial. The defendant's legal representative's factual statement is about the plaintiff's legal representative, and the defendant's legal representative's legal representative's right to claim for the payment of the amount of 2 million won per annum on March 7, 4293. The plaintiff's legal representative's right to claim for the payment of the amount of 3 million won on the part of the non-party's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's right to claim for payment of the amount of 4 million won on the part of the non-party's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's right to claim for payment of the amount of 2 million won on the part of the plaintiff's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's right to claim that the plaintiff's legal representative's right to claim.

As evidence, the plaintiff's agent submitted the evidence No. 1, and invoked the testimony of the non-party No. 2, No. 1, and No. 3, respectively, and No. 2-1, and No. 2, the defendant's agent recognized the establishment, and the defendant's agent submitted the evidence No. 1, No. 2-1, 2, and 3, and invoked the testimony of the non-party No. 1, and the evidence No. 1 is recognized.

The fact that the defendant, on March 7, 4293, entered into one check before the unrefied 2 million won check and acquired the price equivalent to the face value at the time of the withdrawal of the check does not conflict with the parties, and the fact that the plaintiff acquired the check after the lapse of the period of the year without being fixed within the fixed period of time, and the fact that the plaintiff acquired it at the expiration of the period of the year that the plaintiff became the holder is his own person.

If a false check does not specify the time limit without regard to the time limit, the right under the check is extinguished, and the holder is entitled to a claim for the redemption of profits, and as long as it is evident that the plaintiff has acquired the check with the time limit without regard to the time limit as shown in the preceding paragraph, the plaintiff is confirmed to have acquired the right to the redemption of profits which occurred at the time, and the transfer of the right to the redemption of profits is the same as the transfer of general nominative claim. Therefore, the transferor cannot oppose the defendant without notifying the debtor who is the debtor or obtaining the consent of the defendant who is the debtor.

However, with respect to the check in front of the check that the bank entered into the bank, there is a significant practice in paying the check money as valid after the due date, and therefore, the right on the check does not cease to exist before the expiration of the due date, so even if the Plaintiff acquired the check money after the due date, the Plaintiff also acquired the right on the check money. However, according to Non-Party 2’s testimony of the court below, it cannot be recognized that there is a customary practice in paying the check money as valid after the due date, unless there are special circumstances as to the check in front of the check that the present bank entered into, unless there is a special circumstance, it cannot be said that there is a customary practice in which the right on the check does not expire as a matter of course, even if the due date does not expire after the due date, and there is no other evidence to recognize the existence of such custom.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Therefore, the original judgment shall be reasonable in its purport, and therefore, the original judgment shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it shall be so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of costs of prosecution.

Judges Kim Jong-su (Presiding Judge)