The case holding that the holder of a promissory note does not automatically lose his right by a nullification judgment even if he did not report his right by the date of a public summons.

The validity of a judgment of nullification as to the loss of securities is that the judgment becomes null and void after the judgment becomes null and void, and restores the same status as the applicant for the public summons as the applicant for the public summons, and it does not confirm that the applicant for the public summons is the actual right holder. As such, the Defendant acquired the Promissory Notes lawfully before the application for the public summons was duly made, and thus, the Defendant does not naturally lose the substantive right even though the Defendant

Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Act

65Da1002 delivered on July 27, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1763 delivered on July 27, 1965, Decision No. 468(1)1032 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (74Gahap452) in the first instance trial

In the original judgment, the part against which the plaintiff's claim is accepted shall be revoked.

It is confirmed that there is no obligation of KRW 1,200,000 among the Plaintiff’s obligations of promissory notes against the Defendant as of November 12, 1974, which was issued by the Plaintiff on December 12, 1973 against the Defendant, of KRW 1,70,000 among the obligations of promissory notes against the Defendant as of November 12, 1974.

The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff confirms that all of the face value of promissory notes issued by the Plaintiff on December 12, 1973, the amount of KRW 1,700,000, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment, shall be the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the date of payment, and the obligation of promissory notes on November 12, 1974

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment has been revoked and the same judgment as the purport of the claim

The plaintiff issued 10 non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

On the other hand, the defendant, on January 10, 1974, ordered the non-party 6, who is the plaintiff's son, to compensate damages to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. The above non-party and the defendant reduced the above debt amount of KRW 1,500,000 to KRW 1,50,000,000 among them, and 50,000,000 shall be paid on that day, and the remainder of KRW 1,70,000 shall be paid until February 10, 1974. Since the defendant was paid KRW 1,00,000,000 to the defendant, there is no obligation of KRW 50,000,000 in this case against the plaintiff, and there is no obligation of KRW 1,50,000,000 in the remainder.

The Plaintiff asserts that the obligation of the Promissory Notes was null and void as a judgment of nullification against the Promissory Notes. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is asserted to the effect that the claim was made. Accordingly, according to the record of the judgment of nullification filed in this case, the Plaintiff can be recognized as being sentenced to a judgment of nullification on June 24, 1974 from the Seoul District Court of Civil Affairs to declare the invalidity of the Promissory Notes.

However, the effect of a judgment of nullification on the loss of a check shall be null and void after this judgment, and only restores the same status as the applicant for a public summons in possession of the check, and it shall not be confirmed that the applicant for a public summons is the actual right holder. In this case, the defendant lawfully acquired a promissory note before the application for a public summons. Thus, even if the defendant did not report the right by the date of the public summons, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

In this case, there is no amount of KRW 1,200,000 out of the amount of KRW 1,700,000 against the Plaintiff’s principal obligation of the Promissory Notes against the Defendant, and therefore, there is a benefit of confirmation within this limit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection is reasonable within the scope of confirmation of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit, and thus it is dismissed. The part against the plaintiff's loss which confirmed that the obligation of the above recognition exists among the original judgment is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is reasonable. The defendant must cancel it pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and confirm that there is no amount of KRW 1,200,000 for the above recognition, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Justice)