In a case where the bank is refusing to pay the deposited cashier's checks to the depositor before the bank deposits and exchanges cashier's checks outside normal business hours, the case holding that the bank can exercise its rights as the right holder on the check.

In a case where a bank refuses to pay a deposited cashier's check after it paid the money corresponding thereto to a check depositor before it deposits and exchanges a cashier's check outside the ordinary business hours, the case holding that the bank can exercise its rights as a right holder on the check, recognizing that the bank's tort liability was denied and a legitimate deposit contract was established.

Articles 20, 23, and 39 of the Check Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Da1559 Decided May 26, 1987 (Gong1987, 1056), Supreme Court Decision 95Da9754, 9761 Decided June 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2508), Supreme Court Decision 96Da1610 Decided September 20, 196 (Gong196Ha, 3118)

Korean Commercial Bank (Attorney Jin-ology, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Bank, Inc.

Republic of Korea and one other (Attorney Park Sang-soo et al., Counsel for the intervenor joining the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 93Na15150 delivered on September 26, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the supplementary intervenor.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On December 15, 1992, the court below rejected the plaintiff 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's payment of 00,000 won to the non-party 2's bank'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 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 2'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 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

Examining relevant evidence based on the records, the fact-finding by the court below is just, and furthermore, according to the facts established by the court below, it cannot be deemed that there is a negligence to acknowledge tort liability against the plaintiff bank. Even if the defendant intervenor's assertion is based on the defendant's assertion, the damage claimant is the defendant's supplementary intervenor, and thus the plaintiff's claim cannot be offset against the defendant's claim against the defendant bank. Thus, the offset claim itself is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principle as to tort liability.

Furthermore, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff bank may exercise its rights on the check of this case, and it cannot be deemed that there is only the right to collect until the date of presentation for payment, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss this issue. In this case where the Plaintiff bank seeks payment of the check money against the Defendant bank, which is the drawer, as the right holder on the check, the Defendant bank cannot refuse payment of the check money on the ground that some of the amount equivalent to the check money actually was not paid to the Nonparty company, which is the former holder, and therefore,

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)