A. In the case where the check book and the representative director’s seal affixed by the defendant company are issued with the name of the defendant without the defendant’s consent, and the expression agent.

(b) Effect of the check after the judgment on the right of proposal has been rendered; and

Even though there has been a nullification judgment as to a check, the right on the check cannot be exercised even though the lawful holder of the check, and even if the applicant for a public summons is not a person who has been stolen or lost the check, the substantive holder on the check may not assert the right on the check unless he has obtained a revocation judgment by filing a lawsuit of objection with the aim of extinguishing the validity of a nullification judgment.

Article 126 of the Civil Act, Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Act

62Da133 decided July 12, 1962; 65Da1002 decided July 27, 1965; 67Da1731 decided September 26, 1967

Fire fighting;

Monopolym Industry Co.

Busan District Court Decision 67Na191 delivered on October 4, 1968, Busan District Court Decision 67Na191 delivered on October 4, 1968

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

The court below held that, since the non-party 1 had arranged the purchase of goods and raw materials by the defendant company for about 10 years before 10 years, since around June 196, the non-party 1 had issued the number of checks in the name of the defendant company when it is necessary to keep the checks and the representative director of the defendant company's checks and the non-party 2's possession of raw materials, and the non-party 1 had issued the checks to the non-party 3 without the defendant company's approval, but the non-party 3 had issued the number of checks in the name of the defendant company to the non-party 1, but the non-party 1 had delivered them to the non-party 3 with the non-party 1 without the defendant company's approval, on the premise that the non-party 3 had a legitimate reason to believe that the non-party 1 had the power to issue checks on behalf of the defendant company, the non-party 1's issuance of checks without the consent of Article 128 of the Civil Act cannot be deemed to be legally valid.

The ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

Where there exists a nullification judgment as to a check, the check shall lose its validity as a check, and even if the lawful holder of the check is not a person who has been stolen or lost, the actual holder on the check shall not claim the right on the check unless he has obtained the cancellation judgment by filing a lawsuit of objection to the invalidation of the nullification judgment (see Supreme Court Decisions 65Da1002 delivered on July 27, 1965, 67Da1731 delivered on September 26, 1967). The judgment of the court below has a nullification judgment as to the check at issue on the present case, and the cancellation judgment has become final and conclusive by a lawsuit of objection against the nullification judgment, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the original judgment, since the plaintiff, the legitimate holder of the check, can claim the actual right on the check, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the original judgment.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon