beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 6, 2017, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered into a sales contract in which the total supply amount is KRW 370 million with respect to 5-dong 101 on three parcels, such as D, Paju-si, Paju-si, and the total supply amount is KRW 370 million, and the contract deposit is paid up to May 5, 2017 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
B. On March 27, 2017, upon the Intervenor’s request for issuance, the Defendant issued three copies of cashier’s checks ( check number F, G, H, and hereinafter “each of the instant checks”) at the red control point in Seoul Han Bank, Seoul, at the place of payment, with exemption from drawing up a protest for non-payment as the bearer’s meal service.
C. On May 5, 2017, the Intervenor issued to C a cashier’s check, which is one of the instant checks and face value 20 million won, to C as the down payment pursuant to the instant sales contract.
C A around that time.
Of the checks delivered as stated in the same paragraph, one cashier's checks representing 20 million won at face value was presented to the bank and received 20 million won from the bank.
E. Meanwhile, on May 11, 2017, the intervenor submitted an accident report on each of the instant checks to the Defendant, and the Defendant registered each of the said checks as an accident check.
F. On May 12, 2017, the Intervenor asserted that C had deceivingd the Intervenor to enter into the instant sales contract, and sent C notice of the termination of the said sales contract.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branches in the case of additional numbers), 5, 8, part of the witness I of the first instance trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The intervenor’s act of transferring the check of this case to C on the legitimacy of the motion for intervention was based on the fraud.