[수익증권환매대금][미간행]
[1] The legal nature and effective requirements of the account holder's claim for withdrawal of savings assets in the beneficiary certificate savings
[2] The case holding that it is difficult to recognize that there was an agreement that the terms and conditions of the beneficiary certificate savings that "where a depositor exercises his/her right to savings property against a selling company, he/she shall use the reported seal impression and passwords, it shall not be recognized that there was an effective request for withdrawal only when an account holder uses the method of preparing a written request for withdrawal stating the seal impression attached to the savings account and the passwords, along with the savings account book
[1] Articles 2(7) and 7(2) (see current Article 62(2) of the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act, Act No. 6987, Oct. 4, 2003) / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act; Articles 2(7) and 7(2) (see current Article 62(2) of the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act); Article 2(7) of the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act, Act No. 6987, Oct. 4, 2003); Article 7(2) (see current Article 62(2) of the Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act)
Korea Exchange Bank (Law Firm Han & Han, Attorneys Sung-min et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Dongyang Total Financial Securities Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Park Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na21673 delivered on December 15, 2004
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
In the beneficiary certificate savings of this case, an account holder’s claim for withdrawal of savings assets has meaning as a claim for redemption of beneficiary certificates purchased and kept in custody by the account holder for the cancellation of the beneficiary certificate savings contract or the company receiving deposits from the account holder, and becomes effective by the account holder’s unilateral declaration of intent. In this regard, Articles 12(2) and 13(1) of the beneficiary certificate savings of this case provide that “the account holder shall make transactions by the savings passbook issued by the account holder, and the account holder shall use the reported seal and password when the account holder exercises his right to savings assets against the account holder.” However, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, it appears that the main purpose of the claim is to impose a burden on the account holder to bear the burden to require the account holder to furnish necessary evidentiary data in order to easily verify whether the account holder who requested withdrawal of savings assets is a legitimate right holder. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that only the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is valid only when the Plaintiff uses a method of submitting a written request for withdrawal stating a seal affixed with the deposit passbook.
The judgment of the court below on the premise of this is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the claim for withdrawal of savings property.
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's finding of facts and determination that the bankrupt bank's bankruptcy requested the plaintiff bank to redeem the beneficiary certificates of this case since that time when the beneficiary certificates were announced as of August 12, 199 as of August 12, 199, and accordingly, although the plaintiff bank requested the defendant company to withdraw the savings assets by telephone according to its long-term practice, the defendant company rejected it on the ground that it did not have any financial ability.
The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of parties' declarations.
3. As to the third ground for appeal
In light of the above judgment and the records, the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have erred in the incomplete hearing, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
4. Conclusion
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.
Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)