(b) Where some of the joint account holders do not cooperate in the procedures for joint repayment to a bank, the method of exercising their rights as joint account holders;

B. In the following cases, even if a joint account holder does not fall under the requisite co-litigation under the Civil Procedure Act, if a joint account holder opens a deposit, it is naturally bound by an agreement between the bank and the deposit account holder to jointly file a claim for the return of the deposit. Thus, one of the joint account holders may return the deposit from the bank only when he/she jointly files a claim for the return of his/her deposit against the bank. In this case, if the other joint account holder does not cooperate in the joint claim procedure, the deposit holder may first file a lawsuit against the other joint account holder and submit this decision to the bank to the effect that he/she must cooperate in the joint return procedure, such as ordering the other joint account holder to express his/her consent on the claim for the return of the deposit, and if the bank refuses the return of the deposit without any justifiable reason despite the fulfillment of the requirements for the joint claim for return under the agreement, the deposit holder may only file a lawsuit against the bank, and if it is necessary to file a prior claim for the return of the deposit in advance, the other joint account holder and the defendant bank may file with the above purport.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in this case where the plaintiff asserted that KRW 16,00,000 among ordinary deposits of KRW 30,000,000 deposited in the defendant bank with the non-party 1 of the court of first instance on February 17, 198 (the plaintiff's name) and the non-party 1 of the joint name (the name of the non-party 2) were the plaintiff's share, and filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the money and interest thereon against the defendant, the court below held that the part of the claim for the principal was based on the same facts as the lawsuit in this case and filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the deposit against the defendant under the Seoul Private District Court 88Gahap53642 on May 16, 1989, while the joint account deposit account holder of the joint name shall receive the claim or repayment and the debtor's performance was also made against all of the deposit account holders, and thus, the plaintiff was dismissed at that time.

Inasmuch as a final and conclusive judgment has become final and conclusive, the claim portion of the amount of KRW 16,00,000 in this case, which is identical with the above final and conclusive judgment, conflicts with the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment, and the interest portion, on the same grounds as the judgment of the above prior suit, is unlawful as it lacks the standing of the parties and thus, rejected.

2. In a case where a joint deposit is made in a bank and the right of the bank is to be exercised together, the joint account holders should jointly file a claim for performance or receive repayment against the bank (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu8, Jan. 17, 1989). However, it cannot be said that a lawsuit seeking the return of deposit against the bank by the joint account holders is a necessary co-litigation at all times, and the deposit account holders should not be all the parties to the contract.

Since a joint deposit in a bank is opened under various causes and agreements, it is difficult to uniformly define the legal nature of the deposit claim and who is the deposit holder.

If the partner deposits the partnership funds in the joint name, the claim for return of the deposit to the bank in the quasi-joint-ownership relation of the claim can be deemed as a requisite co-litigation in view of the nature of the joint-ownership relation. However, if the joint-ownership deposit holders either contribute all of them or contribute the funds they own share to deposit in the joint-ownership for a specific purpose other than the partnership, and the joint-ownership deposit account holder alone is opened for the purpose of preventing and monitoring his deposit from being withdrawn until the purpose of the joint-ownership is achieved, the right to manage and dispose of the deposit also cannot be deemed to belong to all the joint-ownership deposit holders. In such a case, the claim for return of the deposit to the bank cannot be deemed as a requisite co-litigation under

3. However, even if the following cases do not constitute a necessary co-litigation under the Civil Procedure Act, a joint account holder is naturally bound by an agreement between the bank and the deposit account holder to jointly request the return of his deposit. Thus, if one of the deposit account holders claims the return of his deposit against the bank, the bank can return the deposit from the bank to the other joint account holder. However, it should be viewed as a matter separate from the litigation requirements.

In this case, if another joint account holder does not cooperate in the procedure of joint return, the deposit holder may first file a lawsuit against the other joint account holder to cooperate in the procedure of joint return, such as ordering him/her to express his/her consent on the request for return that the deposit holder alone file a lawsuit against the other person, and then submit this decision to the bank to return the deposit. If the bank refuses the return of the deposit without justifiable grounds despite the fulfillment of the requirements for joint return return claim under the agreement, the deposit holder shall not be bound to demand the return of the deposit against the bank. If it is necessary to request in advance, it shall be deemed that the other joint account holder and the bank as the joint defendant may file a lawsuit to the above purport.

4. According to the records, when the joint account was opened in this case, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 sold 17,200,000 won a house for one household of the above non-party 3 to the plaintiff. In lieu of paying the price to the above non-party 3, the plaintiff directly paid the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 3's debt repayment protocol, but the above non-party 1 decided to cooperate with the cancellation of the pre-announcement registration due to the lawsuit he raised against the above non-party 3. The above non-party 1 deposited 14,00,000 won in the joint account with the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 agreed to deposit 16,00,000 won for the above joint account with the plaintiff bank and the non-party 30,000 won for the above co-litigation 10,000 won for the above co-litigation 30,000 won for the above joint account.

If so, the court below's decision can not dismiss the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for the part of the above deposit lacks the standing to be a party. The court below's decision cannot dismiss the lawsuit itself on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for the part of the above deposit lacks the standing to be a party.

5. Meanwhile, according to the records, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case again and filed the lawsuit in this case with the above non-party 1 and the defendant bank as co-defendants, and sought to jointly file the deposit procedure with the plaintiff as to the above non-party 1. The plaintiff and the above non-party 1 should jointly file the deposit procedure with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the above non-party 1 should jointly file the deposit procedure with the defendant bank, on the premise that the above claim against the above non-party 1 should be supplemented by the cause of the claim, and the above claim against the above non-party 1 should be supplemented by the cause of the claim, and as a result, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the above non-party 1, and this part of the judgment can be seen to have become final and conclusive, and if so, it is reasonable to view that the above circumstances have changed after the judgment of the previous lawsuit became final and conclusive, res judicata effect as to the defects in the requirements of the lawsuit in the above previous lawsuit does not affect the lawsuit in this case.

6. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the nature of the deposit claim established under the joint name and the legal principles as to res judicata, and the arguments are justified.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below by applying the proviso of Article 388 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)