The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

A. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

On January 11, 2013, E, a total liability for the forgery of a check, received a large amount of check (hereinafter “instant blank check”) that was kept in the bank’s depository by citing J, an employee of the I branch of the Defendant Bank.

E concluded on June 11, 2013, that the Plaintiff, the bondholder, was introduced in order to forge the so-called “du two balls check” in the same form as the authenticity of the check using the instant blank check, and that on June 11, 2013, through F, an accomplice, the Plaintiff was provided with a copy of the cashier’s checks and a copy of the check-in checks for three days, and paid KRW 72 million to the Plaintiff in return therefor.

On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a cashier’s check (hereinafter “instant cashier’s check”) of KRW 10 billion at the Defendant Bank AD branch, and issued F a copy of the instant cashier’s check and a copy of the check to F on the same day, and F posted this to E.

However, even though the copy of the check was affixed to the check number of this case, the entire check number of this case was stated in the copy of the passbook.

E delivered the above check copy, passbook copy, and the blank check of this case to K, who is another co-offender, forged the “dunes check”, and K entered the check number of the instant cashier’s check stamped in the blank check of this case, and then forged the check to E (hereinafter “the instant blank check”) by stating “10,000,000,000” in the blank amount column.

On June 12, 2013, F, upon the direction of E, proposed payment of the instant forged checks at Defendant Bank D points, and received KRW 10 billion from Defendant Y’s account.

On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff’s title.