(a) Requirements for exercise of recourse against the drawer of the check;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below ordering the drawer to pay a check even after the date of presentment for payment was supplemented;

A. Unlike the fact that the drawer of a check bears the duty to pay the amount of the check, the drawer of the check bears the responsibility to guarantee payment of the amount of the check (Article 12 of the Check Act). In the event that a check is refused to pay (Article 39 of the Check Act). In order for the holder to exercise his right of recourse against the drawer, the check requires that the check be presented within a lawful period of time on a check stating the legal particulars prescribed in Article 1 of the Check Act. In the event that the check is presented by the holder of the check, even some of the above legal particulars, the check shall lose its right of recourse because it is invalid as a lawful presentment unless the check is relieved by Article 2 of the Check Act.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below ordering the drawer to pay a check even though the place of issue was filled after the date of presentment for payment;

Articles 1, 2, 12, and 39 of the Check Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 15540 decided May 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 1363)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 93Na6133 delivered on December 29, 1993

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of appeal filed after the lapse of the submission period are examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant, based on macroficial evidence, issued one copy of the household check at the par value of 7,00,000,000 won at Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City, the drawee citizen bank, and the payment bank at Incheon Metropolitan City and Incheon Metropolitan City, and recognized that the plaintiff currently holds it. Thus, the defendant, barring any special circumstance, shall be liable to pay the above check money to the plaintiff as the drawer of the above check. Thus, the defendant's defense shall be dismissed for the reasons indicated in its holding. However, according to macroficial evidence, the above check can only be claimed from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the bill of this case since the issue was filled after the suit of this case. Thus, according to macroficial evidence, the court below ordered the defendant to pay the above check money and damages for delay from the day after the delivery of the copy of the bill of this case

2. Unlike the fact that the drawer of a check bears the obligation to pay the amount of the check absolutely, the drawer is liable to guarantee the payment of the check (Article 12 of the Check Act). In the event that a check is refused to pay (Article 39 of the Check Act), the holder of a check requires that the check be presented within a lawful period of time by a check stating the legal particulars prescribed in Article 1 of the Check Act in order to exercise the right of recourse against the drawer. In the event that a payment is made by a check which is not mentioned in the above legal provisions, it shall be null and void as a lawful payment presentation unless it is relieved by Article 2 of the Check Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Da2011, Sept. 9, 1986; 89Da1540, May 25, 1990).

However, according to the facts and records confirmed by the court below, although the plaintiff stated the date of issuance, the place of payment, the face value, and the drawer column of the check, the plaintiff presented a payment proposal without omitting all the entries of the place of payment and the name of the drawer, but only after the lawsuit of this case was filed after the expiration of the period of payment (the original decision seems to be just the purport that the defendant issued the check at Incheon Metropolitan City and recognized that the plaintiff held the check at present is stated on the check held by the plaintiff). Thus, the above check is illegal as payment proposal because it was in the state of lack of the requirements of the check at the time of presentment, and therefore there is no possibility that the right of recourse may arise even if there was a refusal of payment for the check at issue.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the responsibility of the drawer of the check and the requirements for the check, which ordered the Defendant to pay the check money as a performance of the duty of recourse against the Defendant with the delayed supplement of the place of publication, and there is a ground to point this out.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)