Collection of the current number of shares by bank. The date on which payment is made in case of request.

Since it is evident that the check was presented to the payer on the same day through a clearing house on June 21, 1966, when it was requested to collect the check on June 18, 1966 at the Bupyeong Branch of the National Bank, it is deemed that the check was presented for payment on June 21, 1966, when it was presented to the clearing house.

Article 31 of the Check Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court of the first instance (66A12016)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 530,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from June 9, 1966 to the full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The plaintiff shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 530,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from June 9, 1966 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in the first and second trials.

On June 8, 1966, the Defendant issued one check of KRW 530,00 at the face value of the Bank of Korea established in Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the place of issuance, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff, as the last holder of the said check, presented it to the payer on June 21, 1966, but failed to receive it on the grounds of the lapse of the time limit for presentation.

However, according to the summary of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (B) without dispute over the establishment between the parties, it is clear that the plaintiff requested the plaintiff to collect the above check on June 18, 196, and the above check was presented to the payer on the same day through a clearing house on June 21, 1966. Thus, the above check was presented to the clearing house for payment on June 21, 1966.

In this case, since the above check did not have been presented for payment until the expiration of the 10-day period for presentment, the validity of the check as a check should be terminated, and there is no need to determine the remaining points, the plaintiff's claim for the check money is groundless.

Next, the Plaintiff is the cause relation of the check.

First, on May 14, 1966, the plaintiff asserted that through the defendant defendant's defendant defendant's defendant's representative, 530,000 won was designated and lent to the defendant as of June 8, 196 without an agreement on interest payment. However, even if the plaintiff's prior proof, the above argument cannot be acknowledged. Rather, considering the whole purport of the party's argument in the contents of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony and establishment as to non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony in the court below's prior statement, the defendant's issuance of the exhibition check was made to the non-party 3 at the defendant's request on May 14, 1966 without giving or receiving any money or having any cause. However, it was issued so-called training ticket so-called that the defendant received the above check from the non-party and transferred it to the plaintiff for the previous repayment of his obligation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is groundless.

Second, when the plaintiff lent KRW 530,00 in wartime to the defendant joining the defendant on May 14, 1966, the defendant argued that he was a joint and several surety for the defendant's obligation. However, according to the plaintiff's prior proof, the plaintiff cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant joining the defendant on May 14, 1966, and even if the plaintiff's assertion was to the purport that the defendant guaranteed the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff that occurred prior to May 14, 1966, the motive in which the defendant issued the exhibition inspection slip and the reason why the plaintiff was the holder of the above inspection slip are already recognized as mentioned above, it cannot be said that the defendant guaranteed the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's delivery of the above inspection slip to the plaintiff cannot be said to have guaranteed the defendant's obligation to the defendant. Thus, it is groundless for the defendant's argument that

Next, even if the validity of the exhibition check expires due to the defect in the procedure that the time limit for presentation expires, the defendant asserts that he obtained unjust benefits equivalent to the face value of the check, and thus, he is obligated to return it. However, as the plaintiff's pre-payment certificate, it cannot be recognized that the defendant is exempted from the responsibility for the check as well as that of the defendant's pre-payment certificate, and on the other hand, the motive for issuing the check of this case is as seen above, so even if the defendant was exempted from the responsibility for the check, it shall not be viewed that the defendant benefits.

Although the plaintiff had been exempted from the responsibility as the guarantor alleged above, as shown above, the defendant had no responsibility to the plaintiff from the beginning as well as there has been no passive benefit. (In addition, if the defendant has a responsibility to the plaintiff as the guarantor, it should not be exempted from the responsibility on the check at the same time, even if it is exempted from the responsibility on the check), the plaintiff's claim in this case is groundless. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the plaintiff's appeal in this case is without merit, and it is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Young-gu (Presiding Judge)