Whether a person who has neglected employees can claim compensation for a loss where he/she finds a lost number of tickets;

Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Lost Articles Act provides that a person who has found another person's goods in a building where an authorized person exists shall deliver such goods to an authorized person, and in such a case, the possessor of the building shall be the finder. However, in such a case, Article 10 (3) of the same Act provides that the compensation shall be half of the possessor of the building and the person who actually acquired the goods. Thus, the plaintiff is a person who actually acquired the above checks and claims half of the compensation for the said lost goods against the possessor of the said neglected. As such, while the plaintiff's possessor who is the obligor, is not exercising his right of subrogation against the defendant who is the lost owner, the plaintiff can exercise his right of subrogation and claim half of the compensation against the defendant.

Article 10 of the Lost Articles Act

68Da663 delivered on June 18, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 464 delivered on June 18, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 10Da644 delivered on June 18, 196)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (66A1173) of the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 66A1173)

(1) The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be modified as follows.

(2) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from November 18, 1966 to the full payment.

(3) The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) All of the first and second instances of litigation are ten minutes and one of them is the defendant's and the remainder is the plaintiff's own burden.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,200,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from September 23, 1966 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs should be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The defendant-appellant shall revoke the part of the original judgment against the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs were assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(1) 피고가 1966.9.21. 밤 서울 중구 다동 12 소재 오·비퀸 비어홀안에서 동래구 농업협동조합 상무대리가 1966.9.17.자로 발행한 액면 금 3,000,000원짜리 자기앞수표 2매를 유실한 사실, 위 비어홀의 종업원으로 근무하던 원고가 9.21. 23:00경 위 비어홀안에서 위 수표를 습득하여 그날로 서울 남대문경찰서 을지로 1가 파출소에 습득물로 제출 신고하여 그 이튼날인 9.22. 피고에게 위 수표가 반환된 사실등은 당사자간에 다툼이 없다.

(2) The defendant, as an employee of the above non-soaker, found the above water table within the non-soaker. According to Article 10(1) and (2) of the Lost Articles Act, the defendant asserts that the possessor of the above non-soaker's building who runs the above non-soaker's business cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's inseminator or not.

Article 10(1) and (2) of the Lost Articles Act provides that a person who acquires other things within a building where an authorized person exists shall deliver such things to the authorized person, and in such a case, the possessor of the building shall be deemed the finder of the above non-performing Articles. Thus, as alleged by the defendant, it shall be deemed that the possessor of the above non-performing Articles shall be the inseminator of the above non-performing Articles. However, in such a case, Article 10(3) of the Lost Articles Act provides that half of the compensation amount shall be paid to the possessor of the building and the person who actually acquired the article. Thus, the plaintiff is the person who actually acquired the above checks and claims half of the compensation amount for the above non-performing items. Thus, while the plaintiff's obligor, as the plaintiff's obligor, did not exercise his right to claim the above compensation amount against the defendant, the plaintiff may exercise his right to claim half of compensation amount against the defendant as his obligee, and the defendant shall be paid half of the compensation amount to the defendant by subrogation of the above non-party 16, the above non-party 6's claim for the above non-party 16.

(3) The defendant asserts that the two copies of the above check are cross-sections, which the defendant lost them, and then reported the fact to the issuing bank immediately, so even if the Finding did not use them unlawfully, it is revealed that the Finding was the reason for its acquisition. In other words, the Finding is not the length to use the above high amount check unlawfully, and the plaintiff, who is the lost plaintiff, also has no actual loss due to its loss, and therefore, the above check is not a valuable object subject to the claim for compensation under the Lost Articles Act.

According to the result of fact inquiry into the Busan Agricultural Cooperatives branch and the testimony of the non-party 2 of the court below, two copies of the above check are general crossing checks which the defendant lost it on September 21, 200 and can be found to have reported the fact immediately to the issuing bank by telephone at night (it is difficult to believe the part of the testimony of non-party 3 of the court below to the effect that two checks are not crossed checks). However, as long as the issuance bank of the above check is not declared null and void by judgment of nullification, the issuing bank of the above check cannot refuse to pay the check money to the bona fide acquisitor unless it is declared null and void by judgment of nullification, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted as it is without merit.

(4) In addition, the defendant lost the above watermark while drinking alcohol at the time of the above drinking hole. The plaintiff is an employee of the above drinking hole, and the defendant, as a customer, has a duty to keep the above watermark, which was flexible in the place of business during its business hours, as a good manager, and to return it. In addition, the defendant offered 30,000 won as compensation at the time when the above watermark was returned, but the plaintiff refused to receive it. Thus, the defendant asserts that he did not have a duty to pay the above compensation to the plaintiff.

However, as the defendant asserts, even if the plaintiff is an employee of the above non-party 2 who was obligated to keep the above checks and return them, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff who found the above checks, which are lost property, within the above non-party 2's free access by the public, cannot claim compensation pursuant to the Lost Property Act. Further, since the evidence that the plaintiff refused to receive compensation for the above checks was non-party 2's non-party 2's testimony that the plaintiff rejected, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted on the ground that there is no reason.

(5) On the other hand, I would like to examine the amount of compensation to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant for the lost property.

According to Article 4 of the Lost Articles Act, "any person who has received the return of an article shall pay compensation within the extent of 5/100 or 20/100 of the value of the article." The above compensation is compensation that the lost owner received the return of the article from the purchaser that could prevent the danger that may occur due to the loss of the article. Thus, the "value of the article" which serves as the basis for the amount of compensation could have been avoided by the lost owner's return of the article. In this case, it is an objective risk that the defendant could have received the lost article's return, that is, the amount of the check should be determined on the basis of the degree of the objective danger that the defendant would incur from the sale of the article without fault by entering the above 30-day check, and the amount of the check should be determined on the basis of the amount of money which the defendant would have issued without fault at the time of the issuance of the article at the time of Busan High Court Decision 60Da389, May 23, 196).

On the other hand, the above circumstances and the above acknowledged. If the defendant, as an employee of the above non-soaker, acquired a check that was lost by the plaintiff during its business hours, reported to the police agency immediately at night, and all other circumstances shown in the argument in the present case, the compensation under Article 4 of the Lost Articles Act on the Check, which is a real property, should be determined as KRW 100,000,000, which is 5/100 of the total value of the goods. Thus, the compensation to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff who actually acquired the above check, shall be KRW 50,000,000, which is half of the above compensation to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff who actually acquired the above check.

(6) Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above recognition amounting to 50,000 won and damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum from November 18, 1966 to the date on which the defendant first presented a written response with respect to the above case (the plaintiff claims for damages for delay from the day after the check was returned to the defendant, but the above compensation obligation is not due to its nature. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff requested the payment of the above compensation obligation to the defendant before the plaintiff raised the lawsuit, and there is no trace that the plaintiff delivered the above compensation obligation to the defendant on the record. At least when the plaintiff submitted the first written response with respect to the above case, it is presumed that the plaintiff's expression of intent to claim the performance of the obligation was reached to the defendant, so the defendant's claim is accepted to the extent that the above obligation was sought, and the remaining part of the claim is modified to the extent that the court below's judgment is justified, and there is no reason to dismiss the defendant's appeal as to Article 986 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)