Whether the liability of the person who guaranteed the non-payment on a check which was presented for payment after the expiration of the time limit for presentment for payment, and the liability of the guarantor for the check is complementary.

A. Even if a check is refused upon presentment for payment after the expiration of the period for presentment for payment, the drawee may pay the check, unless the check is cancelled by the drawer, so the validity of the check shall not be terminated by the lapse of the period for presentment for payment. Therefore, the guarantor cannot refuse to pay the check unless otherwise stipulated that the guarantor bears the guaranteed obligation only when he is ordered to pay within the period for presentment for payment.

(b) No liability of a guarantor of a check may be refused to pay the check on the ground that the principal debtor has a sufficient means to pay the check.

Articles 27 and 29 of the Check Act, Article 437 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da171 delivered on March 13, 1979

Kim Jong-hoon

Kim Tae-tae

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (78Gahap259)

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,030,000 won with an annual rate of 5% from January 1, 1978 to the full payment system.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

This judgment may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,030,000 won with an annual amount of 5% from October 26, 1977 to the full payment system.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All court costs are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In light of the whole purport of the parties' arguments as to the non-party 1's certificate Nos. 1 and 2 (joint and several sureties) and the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

However, the Plaintiff sought payment within the statutory interest range with a rate of five percent per annum from October 26, 1977 to the date following the date of issuance of the check. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for statutory interest on the instant check is justified only for the portion claimed from January 1, 1978, the day following the date following the date of issuance of the check.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff an amount of 1,030,000 won and an amount of 5% per annum as claimed by the plaintiff from January 1, 1978. Thus, the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit shall be accepted only within the scope recognized above, and the remainder shall be dismissed as there is no reason. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified because it is unfair to conclude a part of the conclusion different from the party members, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant according to the party members' opinion, and it is so decided as per Disposition with a declaration of provisional execution attached.

Judges Lee Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)