The Bank's duty of care to which collection of the check has been entrusted;

A bank which has been entrusted with collection of a check shall be liable to present it to the payer as soon as possible after the expiration of the period normally required for collection, and if the bank which has been entrusted with collection fails to receive the check upon payment after the lapse of eight days from the date it is able to collect it, the bank shall be liable to compensate for the damage of the drawee.

Articles 390 and 681 of the Civil Act

Crata Co., Ltd.

Korean Bank, Inc.

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000 with five percent per annum from December 4, 1983 to March 29, 1984, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Two-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff's attorney shall pay to the plaintiff 20,000,000 won with 25% interest per annum from the day after the service of this case to the day after the completion of the service.

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

1. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2, 7, 7, 1-2, and 1-3, and 3-2 of Gap evidence 1-2 (the indication of a deposit passbook and its contents), and Eul evidence 1-2, and 1-3 of Eul evidence, and the whole purport of oral argument at the defendant bank (the 1-3-1-2-2-2-3-19 of 1983-19 of Oct. 19, 1983), the plaintiff entrusted the collection of 2-1-2 of the number of shares as stated in the attached Table (the 1-2-1-2-2-2-2-1, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 1983, and the plaintiff refused to pay the above check at the 1-1-1-3-2, 1983-10-3.

2. However, as above, the defendant bank, who has been entrusted with the collection of a check, has the obligation to present the check to the payer as soon as possible after the date of its issuance, and according to the above recognition, the check of the number of shares issued as of October 23, 1983 as of October 23, 1983 as of October 23, 1983 as shown in the attached Table (1), is deemed to have been paid after the lapse of eight days after the date of its issuance. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant, as a person entrusted with the duty to collect the check, performed the duty of due care as a good manager according to the terms and conditions of the delegation, and the plaintiff was unable to receive the check due to the defendant's default in the above collection affairs. Thus, the defendant is liable for damages caused by the plaintiff's failure to receive the check as of October 23, 1983.

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of the Defendant’s damages, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the face value of the check due to the Defendant’s default. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay at an annual rate of 5 percent per annum from December 4, 1983 to March 29, 1984, which is obvious that the date of service the Plaintiff seeks against the Plaintiff, as the face value of the check on October 23, 1983, and from December 4, 1983 to March 29, 1984, from the date of the judgment of this case, the amount of damages for delay at an annual rate of 25 percent per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay pursuant to the above interest rate from the day after the notice of this case was served, but it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the damages for delay until the date of the judgment of this case).

3. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant bank is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the non-payment of the check on October 31, 1983 as stated in attached Table (1-B), but since the collection of the above check is a period ordinarily required for the above period of time, it cannot be said that the defendant neglected to pay the check on the following day of its issuance, and that the non-payment of the check is due to the defendant's default, there is no other evidence to support that the defendant's refusal of payment of the check was due to the defendant's default. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation cost, Article 199 of the same Act to the declaration of provisional execution, Article 6 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.

Judges Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)