Whether a judgment of nullification has become a ground for dissatisfaction under Article 461(2)1 of the Civil Procedure Act in cases where a promissory note was rendered on the ground of an application for a public summons that the promissory note was stolen or fraudulently fraudulently after it was so called the so-called “Nurib” (affirmative)

If a promissory note was delivered to a person who assumes a false name as a dead body’s business operator with the statement that the discount of the bill is possible, and the promissory note was delivered in trust with the statement that it would be accepted, and the person who received it would have come to exchange the note with cash, and escape from it as it is, so-called “Nurib,” the so-called promissory note was received as the reason for filing an application for a public summons with respect to a promissory note, if the above promissory note was issued a nullification judgment by stating that it was caused by the above “trust” or “Fraud,” as the reason for filing the application, it constitutes a case where a promissory note was stolen, lost, or destroyed, and thus, it does not constitute a case where the abstract and general grounds for recognizing the public summons exist, and thus, it does not constitute a case where a public summons procedure under the law, which

Articles 461(2) and 463(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1731 decided Oct. 14, 1980 (Gong1980, 13323) decided Jul. 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1211)

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Park Jae-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 90Na6993 delivered on October 26, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

1. According to the facts established by the court below, in order to discount the Promissory Notes in this case, the defendant found contact point in the bill discount column as a bill discount business operator, and delivered the Promissory Notes in this case by hearing the statement that it is possible to discount the bill from the name defective person who misrepresented as the bond business operator, and believed that it would be possible to discount the bill. The above name poor person, who received it, went out to be able to exchange the bill with cash, and went out of the original owner. The defendant filed a fraudulent report with the Seongbuk Police Station, and the defendant stated the above promissory Notes as the reason for its application that it was "private taking" or "Fraud" as the reason for its application. Thus, the court below's judgment was justified by accepting the above application of the nullification judgment in this case since it does not constitute a case where the Promissory Notes was stolen, lost, or destroyed and thus it does not constitute a case where the abstract procedure under Article 461 (2) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act is not permitted, and thus, the above application for the nullification judgment is unlawful.

2. As such, it is not necessary to render a judgment of nullification by deeming that the Defendant was so-called a so-called Promissory Notes, not fraud, defraudation, but is close to theft and loss, but rather, it is also true that the Defendant is aware of who was a NAba.

3. The defendant's application for the public summons of this case does not constitute a ground for permission under law on the ground that a copy of the receipt certificate or a copy of the statement of a bill or check accident identical to a theory of lawsuit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be said to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for dissatisfaction with the nullification judgment, or by erroneously interpreting the legal provisions.

On the second ground for appeal

Examining the record, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below in the process of rejecting the defendant's defense that the lawsuit of this case was brought against the peremptory term, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the facts-finding. The argument

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)