보증금반환
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
(b).
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the addition of Defendant C and D is attached as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Defendant C and D asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of custody money against Defendant C and D is unreasonable as it did not have concluded a monetary storage contract with the Plaintiff separately from Defendant B, on the ground that Defendant C and D’s claim for the return of custody money against a person who is not a party to the custody money contract.
According to the evidence No. 33, it is recognized that the Defendant B’s seal is used on a part of the passbook in the name of Defendant C and D.
However, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the statement No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the status of Defendant C and D’s custodian cannot be denied solely on the basis of the above facts admitted.
Therefore, Defendant C and D’s above assertion is without merit.
(1) The name and the name of the account holder shall not necessarily coincide with the seal to be used at the time of opening an account of a financial institution.
(2) It is essential to verify the real name of a holder of an account in financial transactions.
Even if a financial transaction such as opening or cancelling an account by an agent such as a family member, it is required to submit a power of representation and a certificate of personal seal impression, so it is necessary to confirm the intention of the holder.
Therefore, as alleged by Defendant C and D, Defendant B represented for Defendant C and D’s financial transactions.
Even if the defendant C or D does not participate in the procedure, the defendant C or D may not participate in the procedure.
③ Defendant D stated at an investigative agency that, due to the Plaintiff’s application for the supply of and demand for basic living, the Plaintiff left the passbook under his name to Defendant B, and that there was no entry that the Plaintiff and Defendant B did not return money after DaN.
3. In conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.
The Defendants’ appeal is without merit.