(a) The case where the judgment contrary to the Supreme Court precedents is required to be made clearly;

B. Whether a lawsuit claiming the payment of a check filed by the holder constitutes a report to the court of public summons

A. The argument that the validity of the check of this case has been lost because there was a nullification judgment on the check of this case seeking payment of the check money, which led to the omission of the judgment of the court below, and the conclusion contrary to the Supreme Court precedents, even if the judgment of the court below was concluded contrary to the Supreme Court precedents, it does not constitute Article 11(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, since it does

B. If a judgment of nullification exists with respect to a check, the check shall become null and void as a passive effect of the judgment of nullification, and the holder of the check shall not exercise his right on the check, and even if the holder presented a payment to the payment bank before the judgment of nullification is rendered, or even if the holder presented a payment claim for the check to the payment bank, it shall not be deemed as a report or claim for the right to the notified highest court, and such judgment of nullification shall not affect and affect the above.

A. Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Articles 453, 468 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 21 of the Check Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 67Da1731 Decided September 26, 1967, 68Da2186 Decided December 23, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 75Da1010 Decided June 22, 1976

Plaintiff

The Bank of Korea, Inc.

Defendant 1 and Defendant Defendant Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s U.S. Order

Daejeon District Court Decision 83Na35 delivered on July 20, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal on the rights of the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below did not mention the defenses of the intervenor joining the defendant that the check in this case was invalidated by a nullification judgment, and thus, it did not err in the judgment, the incomplete hearing, or the lack of reasoning, and it constitutes the grounds of appeal under Article 11 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, since it has a blick decision contrary to the previous Supreme Court precedents concerning the nullification judgment, it does not constitute any of the grounds of appeal under each subparagraph of Article 11 (1) of the aforementioned Act. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below excluded the judgment on the invalidation objection by the nullification judgment of the intervenor joining the defendant, and did not have any interpretation contrary to the precedents of the party members concerning the validity of the nullification judgment, and therefore it is not reasonable to discuss that it does not fall under Article 11 (1) 3 of the above Act.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal for permission by the same attorney.

If a judgment of nullification exists with respect to a check, the check becomes null and void as a passive effect of the judgment of nullification, and the holder of the check cannot exercise his right on the check, and even if the holder presented a payment to a payment bank or filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the check before the judgment of nullification was rendered, it cannot be viewed as a report or claim with respect to the court of public summons, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a report or claim with respect to the court of public summons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 67Da1731, Sept. 26, 1967; 68Da2186, Dec. 23, 196; 75Da1010, Jun. 22, 1976).

According to the records, the defendant joining the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's judgment was rendered as of March 22, 1983 with respect to the check in this case for which the plaintiff sought the non-assignment of the check as the plaintiff's lawsuit, and that he submitted Eul evidence Nos. 5 (Judgment of nullification) by proving that the validity of the check has been lost, but the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim for the check in this case and the claim for the check in this case without any judgment as to this point. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment as to important matters affecting the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion,

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division for further proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)