[1] The starting point and period of extinctive prescription of the right to supplement blank checks whose issue date is blank

[2] Whether the crime of violating the Illegal Check Control Act may be charged in the event that the blank portion on the check was filled up and the payment was refused after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the right to fill the blank portion (negative)

[1] The extinctive prescription of the right to supplement the blank of a check issued with the date of issue in blank shall commence from the time when the exercise of the right on the check is legally possible, in light of the underlying relationship between the issuer and the parties concerned, barring special circumstances. Considering that the claim arising from the exercise of the right to supplement the blank check is a claim for the check, and that the right to demand the drawer of the check under Article 51 of the Check Act is completed unless the right to demand the check is exercised for six months after the expiration of the period for presentment, it is reasonable to view that the period of extinctive prescription of the right to supplement the blank of the check issued in blank is six months

[2] Since filling out blanks on the check after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the right to fill out blanks, if the blanks on the check were to be filled up and presented for payment after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the check shall not be held liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act even if it was rejected due to the shortage of deposit or the suspension of transaction.

[1] Articles 13 and 51 of the Check Act / [2] Articles 13 and 51 of the Check Act, and Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da25050 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1976) Supreme Court Decision 99Da64018 delivered on October 23, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2523) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3184 Delivered on November 27, 2001 (Unpublished in Official Gazette) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3207 delivered on November 27, 2001 (Unpublished in Official Gazette)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 2000No4890 delivered on December 27, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the following reasons: (a) the period of the issuance of the check of this case, the blank date of which is the blank date, was filled up to June 20, 1996 with the least franking franking franking franking franking franking franking, which is its holder; and (b) the correction was made on December 26, 1997 after the correction was made; (c) the maximum franking franking franking franking franking franking franking franking franking, which was based on the recognized facts, exercised the supplementary right granted by the defendant around June 20, 196, stating "the date of the issuance of the check of this case," and (d) there was no proof that the maximum franking franking franking franking franking franking franking franking franking franking franking franking 9, which changed the issuance date of this case.

In light of the fact that the extinctive prescription of a blank check issued with the date of issue in blank runs from the time when the exercise of rights on the check is legally possible (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da25050, May 28, 1997). Considering that the claim arising from the exercise of the right to supplement a blank check is a claim for the check, and that the right to recourse against the drawer of the check under Article 51 of the Check Act is completed for six months after the expiration of the period of presentment, it is reasonable to deem that the period of extinctive prescription of the right to supplement the blank issued with the date of issue in blank as six months from the time when the right to fill the blank is exercised (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da64018, Oct. 23, 2001). Therefore, even if the extinctive prescription of the right to fill the blank blank portion was completed, it cannot be deemed legitimate supplement, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the payment of the check was made up to 130 days after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.

According to the records, around October 20, 1995, the defendant issued the check of this case with a face value of KRW 40 million to the highest head of the Gu, and issued the check of this case with a face value of KRW 30,000 per month deducting KRW 1.2 million per month from the check of KRW 38,80,000 per month, and the check of this case was paid at a discounted rate of KRW 38,80,000 per month after one month, and the defendant did not pay the check of this case. However, even though the defendant did not pay the check of this case, the defendant did not immediately supplement the issue date, and even if he did not pay the check of this case on June 20, 1996, the defendant stated that the last head of this case was "as of June 20, 1996, the payment was made by the correction of 9,000 on June 26, 197."

According to these facts, it seems that the defendant could have exercised the right to supplement the blank with respect to the check of this case after November 20, 1995, when he discounted the check of this case and 1 month passed after November 20, 1995. Since the last part was filled with the blank part after 6 months passed thereafter, unless there are other circumstances, such as the defendant newly granted the right to supplement the blank part to the last part, it cannot be made up for the blank part after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the right to supplement the blank, and therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is without considering the above legal principles, and its reasoning is not appropriate, but the conclusion of not guilty on the ground that there is no legitimate presentation of payment is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the exercise of the right to supplement blank checks, the issue date of which is blank.

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are rejected.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)