1.The check holder shall have the right to claim reimbursement of profits;

2. Purport of issuance in cases where checks are issued in connection with bonds and obligations;

1.In the event that the rights of the holder of a check are lost in the procedure or extinguished by prescription, recognition of the holder's right to claim reimbursement of profits to the drawer of the check or to the debtor is unfair because, in the absence of any other method of remedy such as under the Check Act or the Civil Code, the holder has the drawer or other debtor to hold the profits so that the holder can exercise other rights, it is not recognized that the right to claim reimbursement

2. It is reasonable to deem that an act of issuing and delivering a check upon the occurrence of a claim or an existing obligation is issued for securing the payment of such obligation, except in extenuating circumstances.

Article 466 of the Civil Code, Article 63 of the Check Act

63Da1162 decided Jun. 23, 1964 (Article 460 (18) 775 of the Civil Code, Article 460 (18) 12 ① 188) 65Da2163 decided Dec. 28, 1965 (Article 63(13) of the Civil Check Act, Article 63(13), 1515)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court (26Na284)

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are as listed in the attached Table.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined as follows. In the case of a false check where the right of the holder of the check terminates due to the defect in the procedure or extinctive prescription, the recognition of the holder's right to claim reimbursement of benefit against the drawer or any other debtor shall be interpreted as not to have the right to claim reimbursement of benefit if the holder is able to exercise any other right because the holder is unfair because the holder has the drawer or any other debtor in the absence of any other method of remedy such as under the Check Act or the Civil Act. Therefore, according to the facts established in the judgment of the court below, the defendant shall accept the non-party's obligation for the loan for consumption and issued the check of this case in order to secure the payment, and the right under the check has expired due to the statute of limitations. Thus, the plaintiff shall be entitled to exercise the right under the above check, even if the above right under the check has expired due to the statute of limitations. Therefore, even if the judgment of the court below became extinct due to the extinction of the statute of limitations, it shall not be viewed that the defendant's obligation to accept the check has expired.

In light of the above reasons, it is reasonable to view that the act of issuing and delivering a check at the same time as a certain obligation occurred or in accordance with the existing obligation is issued for securing the payment of the obligation unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the original judgment issued the check in this case in order to secure the payment of the obligation, and the theory that the original judgment was issued as the performance of the obligation to accept is unreasonable.

In light of the above, the appeal is without merit, so it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 400 and 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge)