Nullification Judgment and Claim for Redemption of Benefits of Holder of Check

In the event of a nullification judgment, the holder of the check can not exercise his rights and does not have the right to claim reimbursement of benefit on the premise that he is the holder of the check.

Article 458 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 463 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1883 Decided April 20, 1965

Plaintiff

Seoul Bank

Intervenor of a Party

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1, 2 delivered on July 22, 1967

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

In light of the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the grounds of appeal by the representative of the parties and the first instance court cited by the original judgment and the original judgment, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim was groundless, since the original judgment was rendered a judgment of nullification on March 30, 1965 on the check, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the possessor of the check is the holder of the check, and the parties intervenor asserted that the plaintiff can claim the delivery of the check against the plaintiff, who is the holder of the check, and that the plaintiff can claim the payment of the check. However, even if there was the above nullification judgment, the plaintiff who acquired the check in good faith on November 23, 1964, prior to the said nullification judgment was rendered cannot claim its validity, and therefore, the defendant's defense and the intervenor's assertion are groundless, and the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of profits is accepted, and the defendant did not have any special obligation to present the amount of the check to the plaintiff within 160 days on the following day.

However, when a judgment of nullification exists with respect to a check, the check becomes null and void as a passive effect of the judgment of nullification, and therefore, the holder of the check cannot exercise his right by presenting the check, and the right to demand reimbursement of benefit premised on the premise that the holder of the check is a lawful holder of the check can not be created. Since the original decision is based on the original decision (Supreme Court Decision 64Da1883 delivered on April 20, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 65Da1002 delivered on July 27, 1965), the original decision cannot be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the judgment of nullification, and the debtor's benefit as a requirement for the right to demand reimbursement of benefit does not mean that the payment of the check is no longer necessary due to the extinction of the right on the check, and therefore, it is difficult to presume that the defendant exempted the obligation to pay the check and received a reasonable benefit in return for the cause of the check amount without knowledge of the judgment of nullification, the original decision should be reversed without deliberation and determination of the remaining grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro