Where a check requested for collection by a third person is lost, the bank's duty of care;

Any bank that has received a request from a person for collection of a check shall collect it within the period for presentation of payment by performing its duty of due care as a good manager in accordance with the purport of delegation, unless there are special circumstances, and where it is impossible to collect it, it shall return the check to the collection requester, and where the check is lost in the course of collection and return, it shall notify the collection requester of such fact and have him/her take measures to preserve the exercise of rights on the check, such as filing

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Monopolympied Company

Bank of Korea

Seoul Central District Court (77Gahap2878) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,940,00 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from the next day of service to the next day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

On April 14, 1976, the Plaintiff received three copies of the check, 1504, 1505, and 1506, which are issued by each of the above commercial parties, for the payment of the price for the goods to be paid by the above commercial parties from the piracy of U.S. Location, and 4.20 of the date of issuance (4.30 of the check No. 1504 of the same year) on April 20 of the same year (4.30 of the same year) by the addressee, the drawee, the U.S. U.S. U.S. U. U.S. U.S. U. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff was liable for damages equivalent to the amount of the check of this case suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort since he lost two copies of the check number 1505 and 1506 (hereinafter referred to as the "the check of this case") among the two copies of the check of this case which the defendant had received three copies of the check of this case and kept them in custody, and therefore, he cannot be recognized that the defendant lost it while keeping the check of this case in custody. However, even according to all evidences by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's above assertion of this case which was caused by the defendant's tort cannot be accepted.

The plaintiff asserts that the non-party 1 was liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the non-party 2's failure to perform his/her duties as a good manager. Thus, the bank shall collect the non-party 2's request with due care in accordance with the purport of delegation unless there are special circumstances. If it is impossible to collect the non-party 2's request, it shall be returned to the claimant, and if it is lost in the process of collection and return, it shall be ordered that the non-party 2 be able to take measures for the exercise of rights on the non-party 4's request for the non-party 2 to collect the non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's/1's non-6's non-party 1'

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and thus, it shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Oral Jin (Presiding Judge)