[1] The case where human defense is cut off in the acquisition of a check

[2] The validity of a household check issued beyond the limit of issuance

[3] Whether the issuer, who issued the provisional coefficient label by itself beyond the limit of issuance, may refuse to pay the check money on the ground of gross negligence on the part of the holder who failed to verify whether the issuance limit exceeds the limit of issuance (negative)

[1] The phrase "when acquiring a check with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligor" under the proviso of Article 22 of the Check Act is insufficient only to recognize the existence of a defense ground, and it is also necessary to fully know the fact that there is an objective reason that the defense is cut off by acquiring the check and that there is an objective reason that the obligor would incur damage. Therefore, it cannot be said that the holder has sufficiently known the issuer's personal defense on the ground that the drawer violated the crossing line on the check, and that the drawer stated "○○○" on the left side of the check and "the date" on the face of the check.

[2] The phrase "not more than one million won printed on the paper of a household check" is written on the basis of a check contract which is concluded in advance with the drawer and is merely written on the face of a check so that a third party can know some of the contents of the check contract. Meanwhile, according to the proviso of Article 3 of the Check Act, even if a check is issued in violation of a check contract with respect to the funds of a check, it does not affect the validity as a check, and it does not affect the validity as a household check issued in excess of the limit of issuance.

[3] In a case where a holder of a check issued by a third party with a statement of face value in excess of the limit of issuance by the drawer himself/herself on the paper of a household check printed on the face of "not more than one million won", the drawer may not refuse payment of a check on the ground that it constitutes a gross negligence if the holder fails to verify the particulars exceeding the limit of issuance by acquiring the check in question, and it constitutes a gross negligence.

[1] Article 22 of the Check Act / [2] Article 3 of the Check Act / [3] Articles 3 and 12 of the Check Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da56033 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1355), Supreme Court Decision 96Da7120 delivered on May 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1995) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1663 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 299) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Da18959 delivered on December 8, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 323)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Daejeon, Law Office, Attorneys Kim Jung-man et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 97Na1011 delivered on September 26, 1997

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The "when acquiring a check with the knowledge that it would prejudice the debtor" under the proviso of Article 22 of the Check Act is insufficient only to acknowledge the existence of the grounds for defense, and it is also necessary to fully know the fact that there are objective circumstances under which the debtor would suffer losses by acquiring the check (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da7120, May 28, 1996). In light of such legal principles and records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's personal defense on the ground that the defendant acquired the check of this case with the knowledge that the defendant would not distribute and issued the check of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's personal defense.

It cannot be said that the Plaintiff sufficiently informed the Defendant’s personal defense solely on the ground that the Defendant violated the crossing on the instant check, and that the Defendant stated “○○○○○○” on the left-hand side of the check, and that it stated “○○○○○” on the check’s personal defense.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cutting of personal defense against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a crossing list.

2. The phrase "not more than one million won printed on the paper of a household check" is written on the basis of a check contract which is concluded in advance with the drawer and is merely written on the face of a check so that a third party can know some of the contents of the check contract. Meanwhile, the proviso of Article 3 of the Check Act does not affect the validity as a check even if a check is issued in violation of a check contract with respect to the funds of a check, and it does not affect the validity as a check, and it does not affect the validity as a household check issued in excess of the above limit of issuance (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1663, Nov. 24, 1995).

Therefore, in the case of this case where the plaintiff's check is endorsed and transferred by endorsement from the above administrator to the administrator of △△△△, the issuer shall not refuse the payment of the check money on the ground that the plaintiff's failure to confirm the situation beyond the limit of the issuance in acquiring the above check constitutes a serious negligence when the plaintiff acquired the check.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as in the theory, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to crossing checks and household checks.

In the case of a household check, it is only within the scope of a loan certificate between the issuer and the payee, so the drawer's argument that it shall be viewed as possible to oppose a third party who acquired it from the payee as a reason for the payee is merely an independent opinion and cannot be accepted. All arguments are without merit.

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.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)