(a) Examples of improper acquisition of cashier's checks by acquiring cashier's checks by gross negligence;

(b) Where procedures are to be taken according to the method of transferring designated bonds when a right to claim redemption of cashier's checks is taken over;

1. Since the general transactional negligence was caused by the failure of the holder to verify the identity of the holder in acquiring the cashier's checks issued in Seoul from a person without the awareness of the other person's residence, it cannot be deemed that the cashier's checks were acquired in good faith.

2. Where the holder is the holder at the expiration of the period for presentment of a cashier's check, or the holder is not identified as the holder of a check, the transferee may claim the transfer to the drawer only when he takes over the right to claim the redemption of profits of the check.

Articles 21 and 63 of the Check Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da568 delivered on June 13, 1978, 70Da2462 Delivered on January 13, 1976

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Il-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1665 delivered on December 9, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, this check is a cashier's check issued at the request of Nonparty 1 at the defendant bank interest point, which was stolen during the non-party 1's possession, and the plaintiff's acquisition of this check by the plaintiff residing in Seoul will be paid by the bank's cashier's checks from North South South South South South South South Korea to the long-distance bank's payment of goods at the long-distance bank's expense, and the above non-party 2's wife who is called the above non-party 2's wife's wife after the plaintiff consulted with the plaintiff that he will send the bank's cashier's cashier's checks, and the plaintiff issued 2,120,000 won of the total purchase price of the photograph as the payment means for the plaintiff's book with the plaintiff's 2,20,000 won. At that time, the plaintiff did not respond to this issue, and it is clear that the plaintiff's purchaser or the above non-party 2's personal information was not verified by gross negligence, and the plaintiff's gross negligence cannot be confirmed.

2. A cashier’s check of KRW 400,00 in face value is issued on January 15, 1980, and it is clear that the Plaintiff acquired it after the lapse of the period of presentation. Since the holder of a check whose right on the check is at the time when the right on the check is extinguished refers to a person who could have exercised his right on the check (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da568, Jun. 13, 1978). Thus, in a case where the holder of a bank or financial institution’s cashier’s check transfers a check with the lapse of the period of presentation without taking the procedure of preservation under the Check Act, the Plaintiff cannot be seen as being able to present the right on the check at the expiration of the period of 0 days and give 40 days’ right to reimbursement for benefit arising from the extinguishment of the right on the check to the bearer, and the Plaintiff cannot be seen as being able to present the right on the check at the expiration of 40 days’ right on the check or 26 days’ right to reimbursement on behalf of the issuer.

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)