logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1962. 4. 18. 선고 4294민상1270 판결
[수표금][집10(2)민,167]
Main Issues

Validity of issuing checks by the head of the Repair Association without the approval of the Do Governor.

Summary of Judgment

The check issuing act constitutes Article 39 subparag. 4 and No. 5 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Repair Association (Abolition) and in the absence of the approval of the Do Governor, which is null and void, and thus, defenses can be set up against so-called physical defense regardless of good faith or bad faith of the other party.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 39 subparag. 4 subparag. 5 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Repair and Indemnity Association

Plaintiff-Appellee

Dognam Industrial Technology

Defendant-Appellant

Youngcheon Repair Association

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 60Do1884 delivered on July 28, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 200Da1884 delivered on July 28, 196

Text

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

We examine the first ground of appeal by the defendant's agent stated in the annexed appellate brief.

According to the original judgment, the court below held that the defendant's defense against the defendant's defense that the act of issuing the main check on the funeral path falls under Article 39, Item 4, Item 5 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding, and thus null and void without the approval of the Do governor is without evidence, and therefore, the defendant's defense against the defendant is groundless.

However, since the issuance of this check constitutes an act under Article 39 subparagraph 4 Item 5 of the above Decree and without the approval of the Do governor, this act is null and void, which can be asserted as so-called physical defense regardless of the other party's good faith, so the original judgment cannot be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this point, and it is reasonable to discuss this issue.

Therefore, without any explanation of other grounds of appeal, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the last leapon interference

arrow