(b) Whether the right of representation of a person entrusted with the conclusion of a contract for deposit includes the right of representation to obtain or dispose of loans with the security of such deposit;

(c) Where a person who entered into a contract for a deposit on behalf of the deposit holder establishes a pledge over the claim for the deposit, the case denying the establishment of an apparent representation;

(b) The right of representation held by a person entrusted with the conclusion of a contract for deposit does not include as a matter of course the right of representation to obtain or dispose of a loan with the security of such deposit;

(c) Deposit claims by a person who has entered into a deposit contract on behalf of the deposit holder;

In a case where a right is created, the establishment of an expression agency is denied.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the First and Second Grounds of Appeal

In the case of a registered deposit in a financial institution, a person who actually controls a deposit regardless of whom the financial institution believed to be a deposit owner, and who directly or through his/her agent with intent to make his/her own deposit by means of his/her own contribution, shall be deemed to be the deposit owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu946, Oct. 28, 1987; 91Da14987, Jun. 23, 1992).

According to the records, the plaintiff had his wife Nonparty 1 make a regular deposit with the plaintiff's seal affixed to the defendant's depository. At the time, the defendant's employee made a large amount of taxes when he deposits the plaintiff's name to the above non-party 1, and thus, the above non-party 1 is not only the plaintiff's name but also the above non-party 1 himself, the plaintiff's mother, the non-party 2, the plaintiff's sibling, the plaintiff's sibling, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the plaintiff's child, and the non-party 6, the non-party 7, and the non-party 8, who are the plaintiff's children. However, in the deposit ledger's seal imprint, the plaintiff kept the passbook and the seal of each of the above deposits, and if the deposit period expires, or if a new deposit is renewed, the above passbook and seal are given to the above non-party 1 and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff actually controlled the deposit of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that held to the same purport is justifiable in its conclusion, and even if the part that the court below held that the source of each of the deposits of this case is KRW 65,00,000, which the plaintiff deposited in the Korea Education Insurance Co., Ltd. and withdrawn, is different from the specific facts, the decision does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, since it does not reach the extent to determine the fact-finding that the plaintiff contributed each of the deposits of this case, and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, as discussed in the judgment of the court below, by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

As to the third ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below which rejected the defendant's assertion that the above non-party 1 has the authority to establish a pledge right on behalf of the plaintiff in the same purport as a matter of course, does not include a right of representation to obtain a loan or to dispose of the loan by collateral of the deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 76Da1155, Jul. 13, 1976; 91Da14987, Jun. 23, 1992).

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5

The court below reasoned that the above non-party 1 was the deposit owner of each of the deposits in this case or the right to establish a pledge on each of the deposits in this case on behalf of the plaintiff, and that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the above non-party 1 was entitled to establish a pledge on each of the deposits in this case on behalf of the plaintiff. The court below held that the above non-party 1 opened the account of each of the deposits in this case on behalf of the plaintiff, received interest, and renewed the deposit period after the expiration of each deposit period. The circumstance that the plaintiff had the seal at the time of the above pledge is insufficient to deem that the defendant had justifiable reasons for reliance on the above. The defendant's lending under the loan business regulations is signed and sealed by the debtor as well as the joint and several surety. In particular, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each of the above deposits in this case because the defendant did not have the right to establish a pledge on each of the above deposits in this case on behalf of the non-party 1, and it did not have any error in the law of law as to misunderstanding the above one's name and seal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)