[예탁금반환][공1998.12.15.(72),2855]
In a case where there is a special agreement between the contributor and the financial institution under the real name of the financial institution to vest a claim for return of deposit in a person who is not a deposit titleholder, the deposit holder in the deposit contract (
After the Emergency Financial and Economic Order for Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality has been enforced, a person who intends to make a deposit in a financial institution shall, in principle, participate directly in his/her resident registration certificate and seal impression, and make a deposit in his/her own name at the financial institution, and even if his/her agent is permitted to make a deposit in his/her own name with his/her resident registration certificate and seal impression, barring any special circumstance, the financial institution shall be deemed to be the intent to enter into a deposit contract with the deposit title holder who has made a real name verification through his/her resident registration certificate as a trader under Article 3 (1) of the same Order, unless there is an express or implied agreement between the contributor and the financial institution, but if there is an express or implied agreement between the contributor and the
Article 3(1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy, Act No. 5493 of Dec. 31, 1997) (see Article 3(1) of the current Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy), Article 702 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 95Da55986 delivered on April 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1575), Supreme Court Decision 97Da35658 delivered on January 23, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 594), Supreme Court Decision 97Da18455 delivered on June 12, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 1942)
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim-Hy et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)
National Credit Union (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 97Na769 delivered on October 17, 1997
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 2(1) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy (amended by Act No. 16, Aug. 12, 1993; Act No. 5493, Dec. 31, 1997; hereinafter referred to as "emergency order") was enacted on the basis of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy. Before the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy enters into force, there is room to interpret financial institution's intent to contribute funds to a deposit and to enter into a deposit contract with a person under the control of the deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu946, Oct. 28, 1987; 94Da59042, Aug. 2, 1995); and Article 2(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy as the name of the person under the name of the deposit holder under the name of the said person under the name of the deposit owner under the name of the said person under the name of the deposit owner under the real name of the Act.
According to the records, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s cumulative Nonparty 1 (the death of July 10, 1995) deposited KRW 370 million in the Defendant’s union six times between November 6, 1993 and January 3, 195 and deposited KRW 370 million in the Defendant union, and the deposit owner shall be the name of the remaining resident, who is the South-North Korean resident. However, the non-party 2 did not withdraw the principal and interest of the deposit certificate and delivered six copies of the regular deposit certificate to the deceased, and the interest thereon was continuously paid to the deceased. As such, with respect to the instant regular deposit of this case, there was an express or implied agreement between the deceased and the Defendant association, not between the title-holder of the deposit account and the Defendant association, but between the contributor and the deposit owner. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the deposit owner.
The reasoning of the court below is that it is not appropriate in accordance with the precedent prior to the real estate transaction system regarding the confirmation of deposit principle, but the conclusion that the plaintiff is not a legitimate deposit owner is justifiable, and thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal pointing out this error is rejected.
In addition, in light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment that rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the deceased donated the claim for deposit in this case to the plaintiff, or that the plaintiff partially contributed to the formation process of the claim for deposit in this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence. The argument in the grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)