Whether it is the gross negligence that the issuing bank confirms the identity of the holder in acquiring a cashier's check, and whether it is gross negligence that the person does not wear the identity of the holder in the resident registration certificate.

In a case where △△△ merchants confirmed that the cashier’s check presented by customers as the price for goods is not a true check at the same time with the issuing bank, it cannot be said that there was gross negligence in acquiring a check on the basis of the resident registration certificate on the basis that the check holder’s identity is no more than a true check.

Article 21 of the Check Act

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant’s Intervenor’s Defendant’s White Law

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 85Na3344 delivered on October 15, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

1. The court below, based on its adopted evidence, found four cashiers’s checks, the face value of which is KRW 4,60,000 of the Defendant’s issuance, lost at the 7-dong office at Ansan-si on December 21, 1984. The Plaintiff was operating precious metal in the name of △△△△△△ at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ branch office located in Seoul, but on the same day, the Plaintiff was holding 50,000 won of the instant checks at the 12:20,000 won of the instant four checks, which were issued at the 460,000 won of the said checks, and were issued at the 4.0,000,000 won of the said checks. The court below found that the Nonparty’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s check.

There is no evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of litigation, in the above fact-finding process of the court below.

In the above factual basis, inasmuch as the Plaintiff confirmed that the cashier’s check presented as the price for goods from customers was phoneed to the issuing bank and was not a true check at the same time, it cannot be said that there was gross negligence in acquiring a check on the part of the holder based on the resident registration certificate.

There is no misapprehension of the legal principle as to gross negligence in the case of bona fide acquisition in the judgment below. We are without merit.

2. The theory of lawsuit was rendered on four copies of the check lost by the Defendant joining the Defendant through a public summons procedure in the name of the Nonparty, so long as the check holder was not subjected to a revocation judgment that renders the effect of the nullification judgment extinguished, the check holder cannot exercise his right or the right to claim reimbursement of benefit on the check, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in failing to render a judgment thereon. However, it is obvious that the above nullification judgment was suspended the Plaintiff’s reported right and declared the invalidity of securities. Since it is a ground for the Defendant joining the Defendant’s own person (the legal brief of the court of first instance, April 25, 1985, and the legal brief of the court of first instance), the above nullification judgment does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right as the check holder, and therefore, it does not affect the judgment by omitting

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)