[1] Status of bank which deposits deposits by cashier's checks

[2] Requirements for the holder to exercise his/her rights on a check

[1] A bank that has received deposits by means of a cashier's check shall be deemed not to have been delegated to collect the cashier's check from the depositor, but to have been transferred the cashier's check. Thus, in cases where the bank that received deposits exercises the right to the cashier's check against the issuing bank, unless the bank that received deposits acquires the check with the knowledge that it would harm the issuing bank, it cannot set up against the bank that received deposits by defense due to personal relations with the former holder.

[2] An act of check must be dealt with separately from the underlying relationship of the acceptance of a check, and a check is a security representing a certain right on a check regardless of the underlying relationship. Thus, the holder of a check can exercise his/her right on a check solely with the fact that he/she is a holder, and it does not require proof as to what real interests he/she has.

[1] Articles 20, 22, 23, and 39 of the Check Act / [2] Articles 1 and 22 of the Check Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da5244 delivered on March 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1050) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1405 delivered on January 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 364) decided October 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 1763), Supreme Court Decision 96Da52649 delivered on July 25, 197 (Gong197Ha, 2676)

Han-il Bank (Attorney Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na42903 delivered on October 24, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A bank that has received deposits by means of a cashier's check shall be deemed not to have been delegated to collect the cashier's check from the depositor, but to have been transferred the cashier's check (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da52444, Mar. 11, 1997). Thus, unless the bank to whom deposits have been deposited exercises its rights on the check as the bearer's check with the knowledge that it would prejudice the issuing bank, the issuing bank cannot set up against the bank to which deposits have been deposited due to a defense due to the former holder's personal relations.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant bank issued a cashier's check to the non-party corporation (hereinafter "non-party corporation") on February 27, 1995 at par value of 805,409,363 won. The non-party company deposited the above check to the non-party company's free commercial zone bank established at the non-party company new branch of the plaintiff bank through the non-party company's new branch of the bank. On February 28, 1995, the plaintiff bank presented the above check to the defendant bank through a clearing house but refused to pay the check. The plaintiff bank's defense against the non-party bank's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's right to pay.

Article 5 (1) 2 of the General Terms and Conditions for Bank Receipt Transactions provides that "where the customer deposits in securities at the time when the deposit is made, the bank shall return the securities to the exchange and confirm settlement after the due date of default on payment," and Article 5 (2) of the same Act provides that "where the bank confirms that the securities are within the time limit of payment as cashier's checks, remittance checks, or check check, and that there is no accident report, nor is it clear that they will be settled due to the requirements for payment, substitute payment, guarantee requirements, etc., the deposit shall be made at the time of the completion of deposit into the President of the Deposit." However, this is merely a provision on the time of deposit between the depositor and the bank receiving the deposit, and it does not interfere with the view that the nature of the deposit of the cashier's check issued is a transfer of cashier's checks, on the ground that the basic terms and conditions for Bank Receipt Transactions are stipulated in the above.

In addition, the Supreme Court Decision 95Da9754, 9761 Decided June 16, 1995 cited by the theory of lawsuit is related to the schedule of party units, and the issue is different, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case. The arguments are without merit.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

An act of check must be dealt with separately from the underlying relationship of acceptance of a check as an unmanned act, and a check is an instrument representing a right to a certain check regardless of the underlying relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Meu1405, Jan. 24, 1984; 89Meu1398, Oct. 24, 1989; 96Da52649, Jul. 25, 1997). The holder of a check can exercise his/her right to a check solely with the fact that he/she is a holder and does not have to prove that he/she has any real interest.

As long as the Plaintiff is deemed to have received the above check from the non-party company, it is not necessary to examine what kind of benefits the Plaintiff has with respect to the check in examining the claim of this case following the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of recourse against the Defendant. Therefore, it is not reasonable to hold an incomplete hearing or to hold an appeal to mislead the judgment of evidence by violating the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)