beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 30, 1997, the Defendant issued a family check which is a Korean Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant check”) with a check number C, face value 2 million won, and delivered the check to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s husband.
(B) The defendant asserts that he was given to the husband of the plaintiff, but it is not clear.
The Plaintiff presented the check of this case, but was denied payment.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, who is the final holder of the check of this case, the amount of KRW 1.9 million and delay damages for the check of this case, the plaintiff, who is the right of recourse, to the final holder of the check of this case.
B. As to this, the defendant defenses that the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement has expired, the check must be presented for payment within 10 days from the date of its publication (Article 29 (1) and (4) of the Check Act). If the right to demand reimbursement against the drawer of the check is not exercised for six months after the time limit for presentment expires (Article 51 (1) of the Check Act). As seen earlier, the issue date of the check of this case is the date of September 30, 1997, and it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on January 14, 2010. As such, the right to demand reimbursement of the check of this case has expired six months after the time limit for presentment for payment and the prescription has already expired at the time of the lawsuit of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.
3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.