(a) Whether there is gross negligence on the part of the acquisitor of a blank check, if he/she finds out the content of its supplementary right;

B. Whether it constitutes an illegal cause under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, which has interpreted contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents regarding the improper filling of blank checks

A. The Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 77Da2020 delivered on March 14, 1978) which held that "a person who acquired a blank bill with a blank note in blank shall be deemed to have gross negligence on the part of the acquisitor unless he/she directly asks the drawer of the blank note about the contents of the right to supplement the blank note" (Article 13 of the Check Act and Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act provide the same legal principles as regards the abuse of the right to supplement the blank check and the blank note, so the opinion of the above decision on the undue supplement of the blank note shall also be applied to the blank check.

B. The court below erred in Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, where the court below, in reviewing small claims, interpreted the interpretation of the "serious negligence" as stipulated in Article 13 of the Check Act in conflict with the Supreme Court precedents concerning the improper filling of blank bills.

(a)Article 13 of the Check Act, Articles 10 and 77, Section 2(b) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 3, Section 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 77Da2020 Decided March 14, 1978 (Gong1978, 10730)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na49013 delivered on January 27, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is rejected on the ground that the above non-party's claim is not justified. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim cannot be rejected on the ground that the non-party's claim was rejected on the ground that the non-party's issuance date, payment place, and amount of the family check was issued and delivered in blank, using the family check paper "1,00,000 won or less" as stated on April 194. The defendant presented the above family check to the plaintiff for payment within the payment deadline, and the plaintiff's payment was refused after filling the amount of the above family check to KRW 10,250,000,000 (which is filled with blank part).

Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act provides that "if a person has made any supplement different from that made in advance on a bill of exchange issued upon completion, this shall not be effective against the holder in violation of the agreement. However, this shall not apply if the holder has acquired the bill of exchange in bad faith or by gross negligence." The above provision also applies mutatis mutandis to a promissory note pursuant to Article 77 (2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. As to "serious negligence" under Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, a party member held that "if a person who acquired a blank bill in blank does not directly inquire the issuer of the blank bill of exchange about the contents of the supplementary note, it shall be deemed that there is gross negligence on the part of the acquisitor unless there is any special circumstance."

Although the above judgment concerns a blank bill, the provisions of Article 13 of the Check Act and Article 10 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act concerning blank checks provide the same legal principles as to abuse of the right to supplement blank checks and the illegal supplement of blank bills. Thus, the above judgment on unfair supplement of blank bills should also be applied to blank checks.

In this case, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff acquired the above coefficient mark from the above non-party without confirming it. It is interpreted that the plaintiff was negligent in not directly inquiring about the contents of the supplementary right to supplement the defendant by filling out blanks of household checks with blanks. Thus, if the court below rejected the above assertion for the reasons as stated in its holding, the court below erred in the interpretation contrary to the party members' precedents as to the interpretation of important negligence under Article 13 of the Check Act, and it is obvious that the above illegality affected the judgment. Thus, it is reasonable that the judgment of the court below has an illegal ground falling under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)