(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.30 2015나70043

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.30 2015나70043

수표금

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the determination on the cause of the claim, the holder of a check is presumed to be the holder on the check, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the cashier’s check, the amount of KRW 12,500,000, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 27, 2015 to June 30, 2016, which is the day following the day when the delivery of the original copy of the payment order was made by the Plaintiff and that it is reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation.

On August 8, 2014, the head of the defendant's branch office "C", the check number "C", the face value "12,50,000,000, the issuance place and the payment place "Tgu Metropolitan City" are "the cashier's checks of this case".

B) On August 10, 2014, the Plaintiff issued the instant cashier’s check, and confirmed that the check was not an accident check at the Defendant’s branch located in Cheongnam-dong, Cheongju-do on the same day, and presented it to the Defendant through the Cheongju National Agricultural Bank Branch to receive the instant cashier’s check. However, on August 12, 2014, the Defendant refused to pay the instant cashier’s check on the ground that the instant cashier’s check was an accident check. (C) At present, the Plaintiff is in possession of the instant cashier’s check on the ground that the instant cashier’s check was an accident check. (In fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of No. 1, 3, and 4

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant cashier’s checks were lost from E was accepted by the Defendant, and the judgment of nullification was rendered on the instant cashier’s checks upon E’s application, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

B. According to the written evidence Nos. 2, 1, and 2, E is the defendant on August 11, 2014.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

-수표법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.08 2018가단5018958

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.02 2014가단225135

-대법원 1990. 5. 8. 선고 88다카5560 판결

-광주지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단513338

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.05.22 2017가단14057