5.4. 20 million won (ten million won on May 4, 2016).

5. Each deposit of KRW 10 million with the Defendant on May 29, 2016 (the maturity date May 29, 2016), and the Plaintiff requests a withdrawal of KRW 30 million with the maturity of the Defendant around January 2, 2016, and the fact that the maturity of KRW 30 million with the maturity of KRW 30 million has not arrived is no dispute between the parties.

The defendant refused payment on the ground that there is a dispute between the plaintiff and his children as to who is the actual principal of the deposit. Thus, the person who intends to make a deposit in a financial institution after the entry into force of the Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy Act shall, in principle, participate in the resident registration certificate and seal impression and make a deposit in his own name. Thus, if there is an explicit or implied agreement between the contributor and the financial institution to vest the claim for the return of the deposit in the person who is not the deposit holder, the deposit owner shall be deemed the deposit owner. However, if there is an explicit or implied agreement between the contributor and the financial institution due to special circumstances, the financial transaction contract with the contributor as the deposit owner is formed (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da17877 Decided June 24, 2005). The reason alleged by the defendant or the evidence submitted by the defendant to the defendant to vest in the claim for the return of the deposit with the defendant and another person, it is difficult to view that the defendant

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted.