The validity of the nullification judgment where the claimant for the nullification judgment was aware of the lawful holder of the check.

In a case where a judgment of nullification has been rendered on a check, the check shall not be exercised even if it loses its validity as a check, and shall not be exercised by a legitimate holder, because it has its form of final and conclusive force at the same time as the declaration, and even if the applicant for the judgment of nullification was aware of legitimate holder or is subject to a lawsuit claiming the amount of the check, as long as the judgment has been rendered, the judgment shall not be automatically null and void unless it is revoked by a suit of objection.

Articles 458, 461, 463, 464, 467, and 468 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1731 Decided September 26, 1967, 68Da607 Decided June 18, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 68Da2186 Decided December 23, 1969

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant-Appellant Park Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 78Na254 delivered on December 6, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

If a judgment of nullification exists with respect to a check, it shall not only be formally binding with the declaration, but also with the passive effect of the judgment of nullification, the check shall lose its validity as a check, and even if the lawful holder of the check, the right on the check shall not be exercised, and even if the applicant for the judgment of nullification was aware of legitimate holder or was made a statement seeking the judgment of nullification as a result of the lawsuit claiming the amount of the check, if the judgment of nullification was rendered, so long as the judgment of nullification is revoked by an objection, it shall not be deemed as null and void as long as the judgment of nullification is not revoked by the action against objection (see Supreme Court Decisions 67Da1731, Sept. 26, 1967; 68Da607, Jun. 18, 1968; 68Da2186, Dec. 23, 1969; 200Da1010, Jun. 22, 1976).

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)