logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.01.16 2014고정1134
부정수표단속법위반
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. On September 9, 2003, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant entered into a check contract with a new branch of the Korea Cmat Bank under the name of the Defendant, and traded household checks.

On April 31, 2010, the Defendant issued a check number E, face value E, 5,000,000, and a check number E, face value F, 5,000,000, and one copy of the bank check issued on October 31, 2013 under the name of the Defendant as of October 31, 2013.

On October 31, 2013, the holder of the check presented the above check payment to the bank.

However, the defendant did not pay for the shortage of deposit.

2. Determination

A. The extinctive prescription of a check issued in blank with the date of issuance in blank shall begin to run from the time when the exercise of rights on the check is legally possible in light of the underlying relationship between the issuer and the party concerned, barring special circumstances. Considering the fact that a claim arising from the exercise of a right to supplement a blank check is a check bond and a claim arising from the exercise of a right to recourse against the issuer under Article 51 of the Check Act is complete if the right to recourse against the issuer is not exercised for six months after the expiration of the period for presentment, it is reasonable to view that the period of extinctive prescription of a right to supplement a blank check issued in blank is six months after the date when the date of issuance can exercise the right to fill in blank. Therefore, even if the blank portion was filled out after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, it cannot be deemed a legitimate supplement. Thus, if the check was presented for payment with the blank portion filled in the blank portion after the expiration of the period for filling in

Even if so, it cannot be held liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do206 delivered on January 11, 2002, etc.).

arrow